A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement

_{Jonathan Bartlett

July 7, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent post on Biologos, Kathryn Applegate concluded her criticism of Michael Behe. Interesting, though, was this statement:

Many scientists agree with Behe that evolution may have been guided in some mysterious way by a Mind.

This is very interesting, precisely because the core of ID is whether or not the origins of life (including evolution) have been guided by a mind (or a designer, or an agent, depending on your terminology). It is interesting that Biologos and the Intelligent Design movement converge at this point, precisely because it is really the only point of ID that matters.

Applegate has several criticisms of Behe and his methods. I don’t care to get into whether or not they are legitimate on this post. What I want to focus on, however, is that the idea that evolution was guided by a mind appears to now be a shared idea of both Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement. The difference, for what its worth, appears in her next statement:

But whether or not the methods of science could ever rigorously detect teleology—mindful purpose—by studying the physical world is hotly debated. Most working scientists I know do not believe science is equipped for such a task.

What Applegate is saying is that, yes, many scientists think that evolution was guided by a mind, but, no, science is not up to this task.

Whether or not you agree with the current stream of thought from Behe, Dembski, Marks, or many others in this field, it is good to keep in mind what is being done – expanding the purview of science. If you think that the current methods of science aren’t up to the task of detecting the guidance of a mind, why stand in the way of those who think that it might be detected? Friendly criticism is always welcome, but why throw stones? Why not, instead, take the time to ask the necessary questions, probe the limits of what is possible, and develop new methodologies? This seems to be a much more constructive approach than simply tossing stones from the sidelines.

Since Biologos is on record saying that it is okay for a scientist to think that a mind guided evolution, why not also allow that scientist to investigate that thought? Certainly, the first steps in such an investigation will be rocky – many false paths will be trodden, and many wrong turns taken – but if it is true that it is guided by a mind, isn’t this a worthy subject for a scientist to pursue?

Since Biologos no longer has any philosophical disagreement with Intelligent Design (only a practical one), why don’t we then join together to see what is possible? Why don’t we join together to see if we can correct our errant methodologies and come up with better, more reliable ones? This seems like a worthy goal to pursue together, doesn’t it? What could be better than learning more about the teleological forces behind evolution?

Let’s work with each other, not against each other. If we do, we shall learn wonderful things together.

Comments

johnnyb, I agree with everything you said. And I don't think any of it stretches the truthfulness of what ID claims (i.e. there are no "it is proven" statements).uoflcard_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Thomas, I just looked at their description of ID in the Questions section. It is completely missing the absolute heart of ID (in my opinion), which is the statement that law and chance are incapable of producing the fSCI found throughout biology within the probablistic resources of this universe. Irreducible complexity, IMO, is not critical to ID. It is more like circumstantial evidence. Yes Darwinism can offer possible explanations, but looked at through the lens of intelligence, it makes much more sense that things like the flagellum and immune system were developed with the end products in mind.uoflcard_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Dr. Falk - Thanks for the explanation! I want to piggyback on Thomas's issue with the definition of ID real quick. I'll also email them to the address you specified, but I thought posting it publicly would allow for some criticism first. Taking BioLogos's definition of ID line-by-line: (1) Intelligent design (ID) proponents believe that much of modern science is wrong and must be rejected because of its naturalism. I think most ID people would disagree with this. There is only a small part of modern science that is wrong, and that is the part that assumes that *all* causes are naturalistic. In other words, as long as science is studying natural causes, but not claiming that natural causes are the only ones available, I don't see that any ID'er would have a direct disagreement. They might have a different approach, but I don't see them having a direct disagreement. I can't think of a single thing that ID'ers would philosophically disagree with in the experimental sciences. It is only in the non-experimental sciences - where conclusions require some injection of philosophy - where ID'ers disagree, because we disagree with the philosophy of naturalism. As Hawking said, "we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology" (Hawking and Ellis, The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time, 134) (2) The term Intelligent Design, although appropriated by these science critics, is used in many ways and is embraced by the first 5 groups on this list. I don't have any problem with this statement, although I think it should state "first 2 groups", unless I am miscounting. (3) ID proponents highlight mysteries within science, arguing that science will never explain mysteries like what caused the Big Bang, or how life originated. This is untrue. ID does not say, "science will never explain". ID says that we need to look somewhere else for explanation. The goal of ID is explaining these sorts of things. The difference is that, sometimes, our terms of explanation are not what others want to have as explanations. The point of ID is that design is a legitimate cause, and that science can detect it. Thus, science should be able to explain such things, provided it is willing to expand its borders outside of naturalism. ID tries to come up with methodologies, models, and concepts that are compatible with such expansion of science. As an example, Behe thinks that the origin of life was naturalistic. However, he believes that it was based on pre-coded information that was inserted in the big bang. He would believe even so far as a material cause for the origin of life. However, where he would disagree with modern origin-of-life researchers is that they are searching for the origin of life that occurs without any help from existing information. It is that assumption - that there was no existing information at the time of the origin of life - that Dr. Behe would disagree with. (4) They then argue that we must use non-scientific explanations like “Intelligent Design.” Whether or not others agree, ID proponents see their explanations as scientific. A better phrasing should be "non-naturalistic". This would make the sentence true. If you wanted to include your own critique of us, you might say, "They then argue that we must use non-naturalistic explanations (such as design) in their scientific framework. We do not believe that non-naturalistic explanations count as science." (5) Favorite topics include the Cambrian explosion, complex structures, and the origin of biological information. This is true. (6) BioLogos rejects such “god of the gaps” reasoning. The problem with this statement is that you haven't connected it with any of the previous sentences. Many ID'ers don't see themselves as using "god of the gaps" reasoning, so if you're going to accuse us of such, you at least need some justification for your claim. For instance, I do some work in Intelligent Design regarding human causation. This is causation that is non-naturalistic, but has nothing at all to do with "god of the gaps" reasoning. The goal is to develop a rigorous model of human cognition that is non-reductionist and non-naturalistic. As to the origin of life and its evolution, if you are saying that any notion that a mind is required to guide evolution, your own Applegate, as mentioned in this thread, seems supportive of the idea. If this is "god of the gaps reasoning", you would have to reject this, instead of being supportive of it. If evolution requires a guiding mind, why would it be "god of the gaps" for us to say so rigorously, but not "god of the gaps" for Applegate to say so non-rigorously? In addition, how would "gaps" apply to figures such as Behe, who believe that the origin and evolution of life is materialistic, but that it is based on information pre-coded into the universe at the big bang? Since (at least according to my understanding) BioLogos believes that the laws of physics were designed by God, and most physicists think that the laws of physics came into being during the Big Bang, why is it such a stretch to say that the configuration of matter was also specified during the big bang? If this is legitimate, then why is it not legitimate to be rigorous about it, and show, as Behe has, what sorts of things needed to have informational precursors for their origins? In addition, on your "questions" page, you cite the fault of "God-of-the-gaps" reasoning as being problematic because it can be overturned with new scientific knowledge. While I disagree with the characterization, I at least understand the criticism. However, there isn't *any* part of science that isn't open to revision. Therefore, I fail to see the issue. Why should we rule out explanations because they may be overturned? If that was our criteria, we couldn't do science! Some other postings I have done that might help clarify the thoughts of the ID movement related to BioLogos: ID and Common Descent Does ID Contribute to Knowledge An analysis of your and Ayala's theodicy in relationship to Intelligent Design - showing that your theodicy *requires* intelligent design Here's my question to BioLogos - Are there causes that are non-material? Can human causation be explained in entirely material terms? If no, then how does BioLogos differ from Intelligent Design, other than ID want so rigorously pursue the idea as an academic subject, and BioLogos does not?johnnyb_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Maybe Biologos could put this video on there description of ID page Is Intelligent Design Science? - Stephen Meyer video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/is_intelligent_design_science036521.htmlbornagain77_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Dr. Falk: I am not the person to ask for the official definition of intelligent design. I could give a pretty good one, actually, but you should be getting it from the people who have long been trying to articulate it: people like Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, Steve Meyer, John West, Casey Luskin, and all the others at the Discovery Institute. There are dozens of places on the Discovery web site, and elsewhere, where ID is defined, distinguished from creationism, etc. You might start with: http://www.faithandevolution.org/topics/intelligent-design/ Which has many links to articles containing definitions of ID. If you want my own, idealized notion of ID, which has no official status within "the ID movement", but which in my view captures the best (most scientifically and philosophically sustainable) notions of Behe, Dembski, et al., you might look at my reply to Beckwith (still unanswered) here on UD: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/francis-beckwith-replies-to-ud-critics/ The best way to proceed, I would suggest, would be to write to Casey Luskin and John West at the Discovery Institute, telling them that you would like a definition of "intelligent design" that currently finds wide favor among ID proponents, one which you could use on your "Leading Figures" page. You wouldn't have to promise not to criticize ID, of course. You'd merely be asking for a definition you could use so that your criticisms would be focused on what ID asserts, rather than all kinds of things that it doesn't assert. I am sure that John West, Casey Luskin, Steve Meyer or any of the others would bend over backwards to give you the best definitions of ID they could find, and ones that they would not find unacceptable if reproduced on your Leading Figures page.Thomas Cudworth_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Let me clarify one of my paragraphs above: ID claims that the intelligent designing agent need not be specified in a theory for that theory to be valid. That is, an explanation that proposes design without hypothesizing either who the designer might be or the mechanism by which he/she/it designed should be considered scientific. Thanks, I hope to hear from you.HornSpiel_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

johnnyb, As a frequenter of BioLogos I would like to see a rapprochement between DI and BL but see some significant hurdles. I agree that a good first step would be for BL to post a definition of ID that is fair and factual. Perhaps it's mostly the tone of the definition, not the substance, you take exception to. I assume you agree with this short definition taken from the DI website:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Providing a slightly more detailed definition is, I think, what BL was trying to do. I'm wondering if ID considers itself a scientific or a metaphysical movement. For it seems to me that at its core, ID is trying to rewrite the rules of science (specifically science investigating origins and the development of life) to include teleological causes one could call intelligent. Is this correct? So then, what part of the following do you take exception to? Could you clean it up with a few minor changes?
Intelligent design (ID) proponents believe that much of modern science is wrong and must be rejected because of its naturalism.
To justify changing the kind of explanations that science allows, ID proponents claim there is scientific evidence that proves (or is that too strong a word) that such a change is necessary. Is this not correct? What part of the following do you take exception to?
ID proponents highlight mysteries within science, arguing that science will never explain mysteries like what caused the Big Bang, or how life originated.
Finally, ID claims that the intelligent cause proposed need not be specified in a theory for that theory to be valid. That is,an explanation that proposes design without hypothesizing either a designer or the mechanism by which it designed should b considered scientific. Is this correct? Considering that such explanations are currently considered non-scientific by most scientists, how would you correct the following?
They then argue that we must use non-scientific explanations like “Intelligent Design.”
HornSpiel_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Thomas, Please feel free to suggest alternative wording and send it to me at info@biologos.org. Please write a definition that you think pretty much defines ID. As you know though, we think the science that has been done to date has not been strong...so I would ask you not to imply otherwise. However, I'll bet there's a pretty good chance that we'll be able to come up with a mutually satisfactory definition of ID that will be helpful to the Church and that we both will feel is much better than what we have up at this time. Johnny B: I asked to be removed as an ISCID Fellow after Michael Behe wrote the Afterword to the second edition of Darwin's Black Box and in the aftermath of the Dover trial. I did not see that the ID movement leaders were taking scientific data seriously. I was also disappointed that in my six years as an ISCID Fellow I had never been asked to review a paper or contribute to discussion in the manner the Bill Dembski had told me I would be able to do.Darrel Falk_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Alanius makes the statement "Basic science can indicate that God is a good artificer, an incomparable engineer. It cannot go beyond this simple but important deduction and reveal either the purpose of creation (teleology) or the nature of God or the good (theology)." I do not see teleology as about "the purpose of creation" but rather the presence of "purpose in creation". We need to look to theology to find the purpose of creation. Science can detect when something happens that requires intellectual input, over and above the play of simple natural forces. The results indicate purposeful action, but they do not necessarily elucidate the final intent or purpose of that action. "Jane loves Tom" written in the sand demonstrates teleology. It may well be that it was written with the intention of spreading a false rumour that Jane is being unfaithful to Peter. The detection of teleology does not detect the ultimate purpose of the intellectual actor.idnet.com.au_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Dr. Falk: While we have your attention, may I ask you to explain why, on the "Leading Figures" page of Biologos, we can find this statement concerning Intelligent Design: "Intelligent design (ID) proponents believe that much of modern science is wrong and must be rejected because of its naturalism.... ID proponents highlight mysteries within science, arguing that science will never explain mysteries like what caused the Big Bang, or how life originated. They then argue that we must use non-scientific explanations like “Intelligent Design.” Favorite topics include the Cambrian explosion, complex structures, and the origin of biological information. BioLogos rejects such “god of the gaps” reasoning." Dr. Falk, this paragraph is filled with falsehoods about the ID position, and it mingles editorial statements about ID with a description of ID in such a way that the boundary between description and criticism is blurred. You say that you seek to build upon common ground with us. Then why you do you allow, on the web site of the organization which you lead, a definition of our position which we would vehemently reject? To set up a straw man for what we believe, and then make digs at the straw man, on a page which is allegedly informational, is not an act of someone who is interested in good faith dialogue. Will you undertake, *within the next month*, to remove this false and misleading description of ID, and replace it with a definition of ID as ID is understood by its proponents? And to separate that definition clearly, in a distinct paragraph, from any editorial comments Biologos wishes to make about ID? I think this is the absolute minimum you would have to do convince us that you are sincerely interested in rapprochement. If you are not willing to do even that much, then it will be very difficult for any of us here to take your above overture seriously.Thomas Cudworth_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Dr. Falk - It is great to have you here! Thanks for coming by. I had not known you were a part of ISCID. If I may ask - did you become disillusioned with (a) the *idea* of ID (b) the *people* working on ID, (c) the *methodology* of ID, or (d) something else I'm not thinking of. One thing I've found is that most conflicts result from the simple fact that the parties don't know what the argument is really about. The overt argument is in one area, but the true area of disagreement is somewhere else. Pinpointing where our differences lie is the first step towards a productive partnership.johnnyb_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Gregory: First of all, I am absolutely convinced of the old age of earth. Still, if intelligent and competent people like Paul Giem or Sal Cordova want to discuss the ID theory, which they understand very well, without in any way introducing the age of the earth in the discussion, why should I, or anybody else, object? It's a simple question of respect. The ID theory does not belong to anyone, and is in no way the same thing as the ID movement. The ID theory is a very important cognitive paradigm, which will change the intellectual approach to scientific knowledge. All are welcome to discuss it. And it is absolutely true that ID theory in itself is not directly dependent on the age of earth. The fact is, religious people all over the world (and non religious people too, indeed) entertain specific religious (or non religious) beliefs which are very important to some group, while they may appear bizarre to another one. We have to learn to accept that, and to be more tolerant. But that has nothing to do with scientific discussion. I do believe that scientific discussion must stay independent from the specific beliefs of those who take part in it. While in a sense that means that no one should introduce his non scientific personal beliefs in a scientific discussion, in the other sense it means that no one should be banned from a scientific discussion because of his non scientific personal beliefs. That is an important point, to me. Excluding anybody from the scientific debate only because of what he believes about other subjects is a serious form of intolerance, of discrimination and of lack of respect for personal choices and commitments.gpuccio_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

I would love to see some cooperation between Biologos and ID on points they have in common. It's not as if accepting evolution is a barrier to being an ID proponent. But frankly, Biologos right now not only spends quite a lot of time attacking YEC and ID views, but they really seem to have time for little else. And when the time comes to actually talk about the atheists or anti-religious types who actively abuse science to advance their worldviews, the Biologos response has been to either turn a blind eye or lavish praise on the practitioners. And I do mean lavish praise - look at the response to Dawkins' broadside the moment a TE actually stood up and said that evolution is compatible with Christianity and with Genesis. The response was ass-kissing. Oh, but that was just Dawkins. When it came to Michael Ruse, they didn't just ass-kiss. They let him write a few columns. Again, I'd love to see more cooperation and common ground between ID proponents and TEs. But not so long as their writers try to curry favor with, of all people, Dawkins. Not so long as they continue to promote the lie that ID proponents are attempting to abuse science by injecting philosophy and metaphysics into the practice, while ignoring the far-more-common, far-more-tolerated injections made by atheists and those hostile to Christianity. It's not enough for an organization, on paper and in the abstract, to have many points in common. There also has to be a show of actual sincerity, ie, proof that one isn't dealing with a bunch of (for lack of a better word) quislings.nullasalus_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

One of the answers is that 'BioLogos' thus far does not openly promote a position that distinguishes itself from TE or EC. Giberson says he wants to distance himself from 'evolution' because it is a loaded term. Falk thinks BioLogos is basically synonymous with TE and EC. So there is also a type of 'Big Tent' at BioLogos which allows people to hold different views. As I see it, one of the main differences btw BioLogos Foundation and DI or Uncommon Descent is that BioLogos absolutely refuses to consider 'young Earth' as a legitimate possibility, whereas by not speaking definitively about the age of the Earth and allowing folks such as Paul Nelson to speak on behalf of 'intelligent design theory', the IDM is still closely linked with YEC and its promotional channels with American evangelical Christians. Dembski's admission (2003) that ID mainly appeals to American evangelical Protestant Christians, and that in order for ID to 'progress' it must broaden its appeal, has apparently not yielded much fruit. BioLogos says: "No, the Earth is not 'young,' and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise or even to leave the door open to this anti-scientific view." Intelligent Design says, "we don't know how old the Earth is (e.g. P. Johnson)" or "that's not our topic" or "you can believe in a young Earth if you want to, even if the evidence goes strongly against it." There are 3 or 4 ID sympathizers or advocates posting at BioLogos. From what I've heard, there are several TEs or ECs or BioLogos people posting here. Would it make sense to include parallel or mirror posts at UD and BioLogos, such that more interaction or shared dialogue can take place? I noticed the book lists here differed considerably from those at BioLogos, the latter which seem to be more broadly about science, philosophy and religion, rather than particularly about 'intelligent design'. To responses 1. and 2. it is clear that we are dealing with various scientific fields where the term 'teleology' has different roles. Archaeology, anthropology, and 'forensics' are not 'natural sciences,' and they involve human-made things. Otoh, in physics, chemistry or biology, teleology takes on a different meaning b/c except wrt 'artificial selection' there is no 'human-making' that can be identified. Identifying 'how God guides biological (or natural-physical) evolution' would likely be welcome both at UD and BioLogos. Up to now, not much progress has been made by TEs or ECs on this topic, but neither has it been made by the IDM. Mike Gene, a non-IDM pro-ID person, has perhaps made the most progress on this and he is posting at BioLogos.Gregory_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Messed up the blockquote...uoflcard_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

I agree with Thomas about the current tone at Biologos. It frequently reads like Pharyngula sans the cussing. There are also frequent comments like this by Headless Unicorn Guy:
Or Intelligent Design (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean), the latest coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles? There is a constant relation of ID to YEC, again just like Pharyngula. I will say that there are also some harsh tones over here towards TE, especially from O'Leary and Hunter. Let's just admit that there needs to be some revision on both sides if we're to pursue some type of common ground. I still think there are many TE's who actually are IDists and don't realize it.
uoflcard_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Dr. Falk: May I ask you a question? If it is true that you and your colleagues at Biologos are really interested in working together with ID people (as you seem to be saying here), can you explain why, after I made a very positive gesture to Karl Giberson along this line (in gratitude for his conciliatory *Through a Glass Darkly* post), the following things happened: 1. Dr. Giberson made no response to my gesture, either on Biologos, or as a guest commenter here, or anywhere else; 2. Dr. Giberson (a) wrote a column, "Would You Like Fries with that Theory?" which basically argued that no one other than the experts (i.e., those committed to neo-Darwinism themselves) had any right to criticize neo-Darwinism, and (b) refused to engage with the overwhelming majority of the well-thought-out criticisms of his position, posted both here and on Biologos? 3. Biologos began posting a series against Michael Behe - the ID proponent closest to TE in his general position, and who in fact has even been called a TE by some, including TE George Murphy - with the title "Behe's B-Cell Bravado", a title which is (a) manifestly unjust, as Behe does not display "bravado", and (b) is clearly gauntlet-throwing rather than co-operative? 4. Biologos columnists have been unable to resist throwing in digs against ID, even when they are off-topic, as, e.g., the theological dig against ID by Dennis Venema in his Biologos review of Rachel Held Evans's book (which book was not even about ID, but about YEC)? I don't think any impartial observer comes away from Biologos with the impression that Biologos finds much common ground with ID; indeed, it appears to be almost as much against ID (maybe more so) than it is against YEC, if the number of remarks against each are tallied up. Dr. Falk, how does all this square with your desire expressed here, and Karl Giberson's earlier expressed desire, to build more bridges between ID and TE? All the evidence suggests the opposite, i.e., that most people at Biologos regard ID as one of their two main enemies, the other being YEC (with the New Atheists, it seems, as a distant third concern).Thomas Cudworth_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

I am afraid that Biologos is a crypto-darwinian venue and nothing else. They think that Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and they ban IDists from their bizarre discussions. Ridiculing design an worshipping and advertising hard-core darwinists like Ayala doesn't help either. Ayala wrote at Biologos among other speculations this pearl: “But humans are chock-full of design defects… The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.” http://www.biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-cells-signature Actually the same argument was used against natural selection by Swiss zoologist and anhtropologist professor Adolf Portmann. Because natural selection should have given advantage to woman with wider canals. You know: more offsprings, survival advantage – all that darwinian mantras. We can also compare the precise and deep thinking of great scholars and the neodarwinian ravings of Ayala about “bad design”. Not to speak about Ayala’s 2% genome difference between human and the chimp. The number was proposed many years ago when scientists estimated 100.000 genes in human. Nowadays the number has been reduced to 20-30.000, but the percentage has remained the same. One uses for such constants proposed by Ayala at Biologos the name “Hausnumero”.VMartin_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

For the Christian especially there should be a right and salutary respect to the difference between science and theology. No scientist has ever come close to bridging this gap successfully. The only philosopher who did was Aristotle with his notion of “the good” as a golden mean of intellectual and material causes. Two problems with this conception. First of all, we no longer see the sensuous universe as a literal combination of intellect and matter. The naturalism of modern science makes Aristotle’s conception of “the good” quite impossible. Second, Aristotle himself maintained a stout distinction between science and philosophy. Science per se was nothing more than the study of the physical universe, according to him, while philosophy was the study of “the good,” a far more exalted topic. He was careful not to mix the two, lest he be accused by the Platonists of materialism. This business of using science itself in an attempt to illuminate God was started in the modern era by Descartes. The highbrow view of science as a second-class citizen disappears. Instead, science is exalted above both philosophy and theology as the true means of knowing the mind of the transcendent being. Descartes thought this was possible because he made the same assumption as the Greeks—that the good is intellect. Unfortunately, intellect in men is divided between their resistance to their own unhappiness and the goodness of present being; or between pure mind and synthetic concepts of being, as shown in the difference between Descartes’ own highly idealized analytical geometry and Newton’s synthetic geometry. In short, intellect and its concepts of value are divided between immanence and transcendence. The state of pure intellect desired by Descartes can only be obtained through the capacity of intellect for resistance, which, when totalized, leads to the annihilation of present existence. Meanwhile synthetic concepts of being have the unintended effect of drawing “the good” into existence and depriving it of its transcendent qualities. Basic science is making us aware of the goodness of God. What the Bible has to say about creation becomes clearer every day with each new discovery—it is “very good.” Not only is nature beautiful and highly pleasurable, as we know in the summer months by plucking a ripe peach from the tree and eating it on the spot, but it exhibits an astonishing degree of engineering excellence. Basic science can indicate that God is a good artificer, an incomparable engineer. It cannot go beyond this simple but important deduction and reveal either the purpose of creation (teleology) or the nature of God or the good (theology). Basic science is now performing an invaluable service as the handmaiden of theology. We agree with Gould. Let it know its rightful place and be content to serve.allanius_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

There are few things that we would like more than this. Johnnyb is right. We are almost on the same page in so many respects. Many of the leaders in evolutionary creation have been tangentially associated with the ID movement. Bill Dembksi asked me to be an ISCID Fellow and I accepted almost 10 years ago. About 4 years ago, I asked to have my name removed. I recently attended a meeting with a small group of leaders of the TE/EC perspective. Someone asked for a show of hands of those who attended the "Mere Christianity" conference in 1996 at Biola. Several raised their hands. So why did we become disillusioned? That's the question I'll leave unanswered right now. However, my prayer would be that John 17 will yet become a reality given that we have so much in common.Darrel Falk_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Timothy - Sadly you are possibly right. My hope is that we can at least voice our disagreements as friends who share a common cause, not as enemies crusading, one against the other. But who knows! There is no limit to God's healing power. He has healed marriages with deeper divides. I do not think our two communities are too far gone so as to give up hope.johnnyb_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

I very much like the sound of this post. Just some of the points that strike a chord with me: What I want to focus on, however, is that the idea that evolution was guided by a mind appears to now be a shared idea of both Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement. Why not, instead, take the time to ask the necessary questions, probe the limits of what is possible, and develop new methodologies? Since Biologos no longer has any philosophical disagreement with Intelligent Design (only a practical one), why don’t we then join together to see what is possible? Let’s work with each other, not against each other. If we do, we shall learn wonderful things together. But perhaps I’m just hoping for too much and Biologos and UD will be back to slugging it again next week; or perhaps even tomorrow.Timothy V Reeves_{July 8, 2010
July
07
Jul
8
08
2010
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

The problem for most TE's is not so much that, for them, science is not up to the task. If that were the only thing between us, the disagreements would not be nearly so heated. Their skepticism goes deeper than that, reflecting the idea that life's design patterns cannot be detected at all, formally or informally. Put another way, they don't just doubt that the design of life can be measured, they don't think it can be apprehended at all--as if God revealed himself in cosmology and then turned around and hid himself in biology.StephenB_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Phaedros,
This seems so silly as to be absurd. What do archaeologists do?
And forensic scientists, and the folks at SETI, and anthropologists.Clive Hayden_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

"But whether or not the methods of science could ever rigorously detect teleology—mindful purpose—by studying the physical world is hotly debated. Most working scientists I know do not believe science is equipped for such a task." This seems so silly as to be absurd. What do archaeologists do?Phaedros_{July 7, 2010
July
07
Jul
7
07
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply