Back to School Part VI

_{Cornelius Hunter

October 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Evolutionists are adamant that science must be free of religion or anything that smacks of religion. And while that sounds good, evolutionists are all-the-while driven by religion. They are sure all of biology is a fluke because of their religious convictions. Religion is both the source of evolution’s certainty and the target of its wrath. While not proclaiming that science must be free of religion, evolutionists make a wide spectrum of religious claims that mandate their theory. Read more

Comments

Hi, AussieID, At the educational level, I can fully understand the desire to look at multiple theories. But the competing theories should have some semblance of parity before they are taught to schoolchildren side by side. Some people aren't convinced that the Incas could have built Machu Picchu, because it was such a complex and massive undertaking. Their alternative theory is that extra-terrestrials built it for the Incas, or assisted them with it. Should they get to teach their theory in publicly funded schools? Evolutionists have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to the problem of where new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a mailman. Mutation changes the genome, and therefore changes the information contained therein. If I'm not mistaken, recombination of DNA during meiosis can also introduce alterations in the sequence. Cheers, AMWAMW_{October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, I'm not arguing that Dawkins, Meyers et al. don't have their own echo chambers. What I'm struck by is that creationists/ID proponents equate such echo chambers with religion, when they are almost universally religious people themselves and are largely interested in creationism/ID for its religious implications.AMW_{October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Hi, CannuckianYankee. Is there a full-text version of the article where Dembski talked about the Logos. I can find the snippet I quoted easily enough, but the full article escapes me. Regardless of that article, though, you can see an independent sample here of Dembski promoting ID as a tool of theism: Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God. Oddly enough, in the paragraph immediately preceding that one he claims that: Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system.AMW_{October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Here's a better reference: History of America's Education Universities, Textbooks and Our Founders Last of Three Parts Excerpt: 106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose. Harvard College, 1636 - An Original Rule of Harvard College: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, (John 17:3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning." William and Mary, 1691 - The College of William and Mary was started mainly due to the efforts of Rev. James Blair in order, according to its charter of 1691, "that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian religion may be propagated among the Western Indians to the glory of Almighty God." Yale University, 1701 - Yale University was started by Congregational ministers in 1701,"for the liberal and religious education of suitable youth…to propagate in this wilderness, the blessed reformed Protestant religion…" Princeton, 1746 - Associated with the Great Awakening, Princeton was founded by the Presbyterians in 1746. Rev. Jonathan Dickinson became its first president, declaring, "cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/shenandoah/qtr1/0312.htmbornagain77_{October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

This is interesting for 'Back to School": Harvard University Charter 1636 Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17.3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2, 3). Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein. http://kevincraig.us/barton-education.htm I think I also read somewhere that 104 out of the 108 major universities in America had a Christian denomination found their originationbornagain77_{October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

G'day AMW, You certainly are a civil interlocuter. What a change! Anyway, I almost totally agree with what you posted @ 25. What we are seeing now, (the crystal ball comes out) is the part of the show where the questions surrounding the scientific merits of Darwinian processes are being scrutinised more than ever before, and the 'Big Science' statements are being judged more than ever before too. You note: "Someone who never reaches that eventual rejection of the model (assuming he’s seen the facts) is mentally or morally deficient" But again it's more than the facts: the facts interpretation is tantamount to one's belief. Are rival theoretical constructs allowed over the same pieces of evidence? The availability to allow discussion on tertiary/university campuses to this degree is missing. Does science only permit one voice? Side issue: Dr Gavriel Avital, Israel's Education Minister, has been sacked because he didn't tow the party line. He said, "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings’ origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions." He wasn't denying the teaching of evolution, because he saw that students would be learning it from textbooks, but he wishe that an alternate view be aired - the scientific argument argued - but the alternate view here is being censored ... by the evolutionists. Their religion is being questioned so the upstarts must be persecuted and silenced. Hmmm. "Expelled Again" the sequel? Back to it: Our minds do change, our thoughts get molded, and I see that this is a point in time where the evolutionary zealousness for their theory is not in sync with what the evidence provides. Evolutionists have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to the problem of where new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a mailman. They have no direct experimental evidence for this claim. And when you start trying to hypothesise (and that's all they can do!) about information at the meta-level: the transcription machinery (which needs to continually copy information for ongoing use) and the replication machinery (which needs to unzip the the DNA double-helix and replicate a copy back onto each of the separated strands) then a mindless, random process to beget such things is border-line hallucinatory. When evolutionists forget their religion and look toward this Mount Impossible, then steps towards understanding will be possible, but not before. They will have to forget their faith to find the answer ... So sayeth AussieID. Ommmmmm.AussieID_{October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

OT, Frank Turek has a recently uploaded video: Frank Turek - I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist - 2 hr. video - recorded October 9th http://vimeo.com/15918981 as well there are a few other videos on the channel that were part of the October Biola apologetics conference.bornagain77_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

BA and AMW, "If you don’t believe me on this level of religious zeal displayed by Darwinists perhaps you care to meander over to PZ Meyers echo chamber and voice a few doubts about Darwinism, and see what kind of response you receive for doubting the almighty power of Darwinism to explain all life on earth." Good idea. Play Devil's advocate over there and see where that gets you. :)CannuckianYankee_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

AMW, I also extend the welcome. I would suggest reading two other threads here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/three-simple-syllogisms/ And it's continuation at: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/15288/ The two threads begin with an observation of something Darwinists typically omit - that is that issues of design detection are legitimate except where they pertain to living things. At the end of the first thread we're discussing methodological naturalism and how it is insufficiently defined such as to be meaningless. For more in-depth information on these issues, I refer you to UD's FAQ: "Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design," particularly 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18 and 19, found here: https://uncommondescent.com/faq I hope this helps.CannuckianYankee_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

AMW, I consider many of the neo-Darwinists I have run across on the net to be the most dogmatic of religious types that I can imagine. They have such blind faith, in the power of material processes to generate staggering levels of unmatched complex information in life, that it would make a suicide bomber blush. They harbor this extreme unscientific blind faith even though no one has demonstrated the generation of any prescriptive information whatsoever (Abel; null hypothesis) by purely material processes. If you don't believe me on this level of religious zeal displayed by Darwinists perhaps you care to meander over to PZ Meyers echo chamber and voice a few doubts about Darwinism, and see what kind of response you receive for doubting the almighty power of Darwinism to explain all life on earth.bornagain77_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

I haven't had time to read through all the posts here, so if someone has already addressed this, please move on. :) AMW, when Dembski refers to the Logos of John, he seems more interested in the application of an ancient Greek philosophical concept concerning information, which has implications for ID. The term's use in philosophy begins with Heraclitus, who asserted that change is central to the universe. He also believed that all things come into being from logos (word, reason or account). John's gospel referred to the term in pretty much the same way, only applying the term quite explicitly to the divine. So what Dembski is actually asserting is that information required for life is in line both with John's gospel and with the underlying ancient Greek concept found in logos. There is nothing peculiarly religious in such an observation. Many non-Christians have made similar observations about the universe and life, including Einstein and even Steven Hawking, when he asserts that the universe is governed by the laws of science. One has to ask where these laws derive, and logos as a concept seems to touch on this. Physical laws seem to be tied to the account required for existence. The laws themselves are not the account, but simply our way of describing a certain order we find in the cosmos. That there is this order seems to suggest that there is an underlying informational account for such order.CannuckianYankee_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

AMW, I apologize for the AMD. And I'm not even thinking about getting a new computer :-)tribune7_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

AMD --“Keynesians believe that wages rarely fall during recessions because workers suffer from money illusion. I do not believe that workers suffer from money illusion. Therefore, I am not a Keynesian.” It doesn’t follow that Keynesian macroeconomics is a religious proposition. And you are correct in that Keynesian macroeconomics is not a religious proposition albeit Paul Krugman may certainly make one wonder. Not all dogmas are religious but all religions at some point must have a dogma.tribune7_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, Thanks for the link! Now that you've provided one that I wanted to read, maybe I'll have to stop ribbing you about the ones I consider superfluous. My prediction about the quotation was that: taken in its original context, Ruse is not accusing the theory of evolution of being religious by its very nature. I also doubt that he is accusing the scientific community at large of being religious in their acceptance and use of evolutionary theory. After reading the full article, I'd say it confirms my first doubt. Sample quotations (all emphases mine): "Evolutionary ideas were to undergo a great transformation in the 1930s and 1940s, when a professional science of evolutionary studies was developed -- a professional science which stood on its own legs by its own merits, having no need for an alternative career as secular ideology. But this secular ideology or religion hardly folded its tents and crept away." "Today, professional evolution thrives. But the old religion survives and thrives right alongside it." "There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed." However, my second doubt appears to be refuted. Ruse seems to draw no distinction between "evolutionists" who accept the theory as scientists and those who fuse evolution with (ir)religious convictions. Or, even if he implicitly draws that distinction, he certainly spends all his time talking about the latter group.AMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

tribune7, huzzah on your "agreeing with the answers" quip. It had me smiling like your emoticon. But then you go on to say: A Muslim believes Muhammad to be the prophet. I don’t believe Muhammad to be a prophet. I am not a Muslim. I could just as easily say, "Keynesians believe that wages rarely fall during recessions because workers suffer from money illusion. I do not believe that workers suffer from money illusion. Therefore, I am not a Keynesian." It doesn't follow that Keynesian macroeconomics is a religious proposition. What's more, I don't even think that Keynesian macroeconomics becomes a religion if one, many, or all of its adherents refuse to update their beliefs in the face of facts to the contrary. And to say that such a refusal is synonymous with religion seems quite a smear against religion.AMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

AussieID, Within a certain margin, I'll agree that we tend to interpret the facts to fit our model. But as the facts that run contrary to our model builds up, eventually it is the model that is the casualty. Someone who never reaches that eventual rejection of the model (assuming he's seen the facts) is mentally or morally deficient. You seem to be saying that belief is a frictionless feedback loop. "You will believe what you believe." But unless you have never changed your mind on any topic, you know that not to be the case. Cheers, AMWAMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

AMW I utterly reject the notion that religion requires one to stop asking questions at a certain point Oh, asking the questions is fine. You just have to agree with the answers :-) Seriously, it's basically a syllogism. A Muslim believes Muhammad to be the prophet. I don't believe Muhammad to be a prophet. I am not a Muslim. I suspect that your religion holds as dogma that God is tolerant, forgiving and loving. Suppose you come to conclude that God demands legalistic perfection? Could you still be part of the religion you now hold? Fortunately, if my suspicion is correct, you have a faith that holds to the proper dogma, at least in some regards.tribune7_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

AMW, here you go,,, Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3 http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html Further notes: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/455/ What about Darwinism, evolution, and religion? In fact, those most ardent to turn evolution into a religion have tended not to be Darwinians. Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley in the nineteenth century and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the twentieth. But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/02/01/michael-ruse-evolution-and-religion.htmbornagain77_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

tribune7, I utterly reject the notion that religion requires one to stop asking questions at a certain point, or to refrain from asking questions about a particular topic. One might as well define religion as a cognitive bias. My religious convictions are subject to change on the basis of reason and evidence. (Though, perhaps, they are not so subject as I would like.)AMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I agree with your broader point that one can't just use the mantle of scientific authority to silence discussion on non-scientific matters. But then, reading Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial, I get the sense that this is exactly what he is trying to do. I have to part company with you regarding methodological naturalism in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. It seems like a solid starting point to me. Science is the study of nature. Appeals to the supernatural may explain any number of phenomena. But then, appeals to the supernatural don't really tell us much about nature.AMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I'm not convinced that I'm wrong based on the numbers. The theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among biologists, paleo-anthropologists and the like. But the scientific community is about evenly split between theists and atheists. That would put the extreme upper bound of X at somewhere around 50%. Do you think that only around half of ID proponents think of it as a way to confirm that there is a God?AMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, Do you have a link to the original Ruse piece? I ask, because I've been unable to find a copy of it on the web. I don't doubt that the quotation is accurate, but I have a feeling that taken in its original context, Ruse is not accusing the theory of evolution of being religious by its very nature. I also doubt that he is accusing the scientific community at large of being religious in their acceptance and use of evolutionary theory. I'd like to confirm or refute these suspicions by reading the full article.AMW_{October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Hello, all. I just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know I've read your responses, but don't have time this weekend to formulate one of my own. I'll write back when I can. Cheers, AMWAMW_{October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Again, welcome AMW and I ditto AussieID. Religion must be dogmatic because the moment it stops being dogmatic it stops being a religion -- just as when science starts being held dogmatically it stops being science. The purpose of religion is to give a definitive answer to the big questions what is the purpose of existence, how did all this come about, why am I here etc. Obviously not all religions are right, and the better religions don't attempt to provide a definitive answer about everything such as the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. But there comes a point in any religion where certain things must not be questioned. The more dogmatic something is the more the sign one is dealing with a religion.tribune7_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Thanks to trib, Upright, Clive, BA77 and gpuccio ... this 'being on the other side of the world thing' really stalls flowing conversation! G'day AMW, The others have basically answered what I would have noted and much more. If I could just point to one aspect of your 2nd post: "Unless we’re working from different definitions of religion." I believe we are. There are some of us who are deeply religious and admit to this as an aspect of our adherence to ID, also realising that ID does identify The Creator/a creator/any something, but posits that the Darwinian synthesis is wildly lacking. Others have been led here from the secular world understanding that the gulf between what Darwinian evolution 'says' and what is 'possible' is incomparable. Where the theory is stitched together is where its 'religious' adherents are found. We all have the same evidence. It is your belief system - your religious convictions - that tie ends together. This is where the science is hazy and the religion comes to the fore. You will believe what you believe. The most irate of the evolutionist stock are critically religious and, as you noted, although you haven't had much experience here discussing origins, the first thing you have to ask is 'why' you believe what you do. 'The evidence!' is the cry. Evidence doesn't speak ... it is spoken for, it is interpreted, and from your perspective or mine, our beliefs - our religiousity - will determine WHERE the evidence leads. Good to have you here AMW.AussieID_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

AMW: A good example of what I mean could be Gerald Joyce's definition of life: "Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution". Can you imagine a better example of incorporating so many philosophical assumptions in a supposed "scientific" definition?gpuccio_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

AMW: I would just say that both X and Y are making a bad use of scientific arguments (they are obviously entitled to use their arguments in a philosophical context, but that is not a scientific argument). The problem is probably that darwinists are using their scientific "authority", and not reasonable arguments, to counter the different scientific vue which is ID. That is very much evident in a lot of contexts. I don't believe that ID has used any religious argument in its official formulations, at least in the most accurate. Dembski has always clearly separated his scientific arguments from his philosophical ot theological arguments. I am really amazed that he is so often attacked only because he is not only a mathematician and scientist, but also a theologian. What's wrong in that? There is nothing wrong in Dawikins being a "philosopher" when he writes biiks like "The God delusion". The problems are two: a) He is a very bad philosopher b) He implicitly supports his bad philosophy with false scientific authority. In the end, ny point is thyat it is wrong to use some supposed "authority" from the scientific "consensus" to impose one's philosophical views. That's what official science has been doing veru often, especially in the last decades. That's scientism, and not science. One example? Methodological naturalism is a philosophy of science. It is not science. And yet, it is imposed as a necessary scientific premise. Again, that is a philosophical position. I am not arguing here if it is true or false (but I do believe it is philosophically false). I am just saying that it is wrong to present it as science. ID is not doing that. You must not judge the personal positions of many people. You must judge the theory. Nowhere in the theory there is any philosophical imposition out of any suppsoed authority or "consensus". I would definitely say that the theory, good or bad that it may be, strongly rests on its own merits. So, ID is not using any dogmatic assumptions in its reasonings. Official "science", instead, does that very often, and supports that with false concepts of "scientific authority" and "scientific consensus".gpuccio_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

AMW, 1) You are no where near correct based upon nothing but the numbers. 2) It doesn't matter. 3) The evidence for ID, and against an unguided origin of Life, remains unchanged by cultural distractions.Upright BiPed_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

AMW, "Evolution is promoted by its practioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with its meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion." Michael Ruse - National Post 5-13-2000 William Provine Lays Out The True Implications Of Evolution - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109249 but the main point AMW, the point that trumps all other points, is that Darwinian evolution is completely false scientifically. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681bornagain77_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Hi, tribune7. I'm with you right up to through your third paragraph, but the fourth throws me for a loop. Why must religion be held dogmatically?AMW_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply