Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Barr v. Arrington

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at the First Things blog Stephen Barr said that there is no way to compute the probabilities of evolution.

I disagreed and pointed him to Dembski’s and Marks’ work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. Barr responded by citing a 2003 article by Wesley Elsberry and said the critique of Dembski’s work was, if valid, “very damaging.”

I responded by pointing out that the Dembski/Marks article to which I had linked was from 2009 and therefore it was not possible for Elsberry to have critiqued it in 2003. Here’s where things got interesting. Instead of allowing my response through, the FT moderator deleted it.

When I learned this I posted the following protest: “My responses to SMB and David Nickol were deleted. Why? What policy of moderation did I violate? Are you just trying to cover for the fact that one of your board memebers (SMB) is one of the most useful of all of the useful idiots so valuable to the materialist enemies of Christianity?”

A different moderator must have been at the helm, because he let it through.  Update:  FT has now deleted this response too.

Jerry Beckett responded: “You can’t be serious. If any of “materialist enemies” invoke Dr. Barr in support of their worldview, kindly refer them to his Modern Physics & Ancient Faith. Christianity has absolutely nothing to fear from evolution by natural selection . . .”

Here is my reply to Beckett:  Update:  The FT moderator refused to let this response see the light of day.

Jerry, yes, I am serious, and I will let the materialists speak for themselves:

Will Provine:
Evolution is the “greatest engine of atheism.”

“. . . belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

“The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.”

Richard Dawkins:

“Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the time-line is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.”

“. . . although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Daniel Dennett:

“Evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs have been careful not to look as closely as we have been looking, or else hold a religious view that gives God what we might call a merely ceremonial role to play.”

Ernst Mayr:

“The natural causes postulated by the evolutionists completely separated God from his creation, for all practical purposes. The new explanatory model replaced planned teleology by the haphazard process of natural selection. This required a new concept of God and a new basis for religion.”

T.H. Huxley

“In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind – the Catholic Church.”

Ernst Haeckel

“Our concern is rather with the unparalleled influence that Darwinism, and its application to man, have had during the last forty years on the whole province of science; and at the same time, with its irreconcilable opposition to the dogmas of the Churches.”

Julian Huxley:

“In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.”

E.O. Wilson:

“If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.”

Stephen Jay Gould:

“No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature . . . whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature.”

Douglas Futuyma:

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

Stephen M. Barr:

I paraphrase: “Darwinian evolution is true.”

Jerry, you do the math. I don’t care what else Barr has written. Indeed, the greater his prominence among Christian thinkers the more harm he has done in lending his imprimatur to the Darwinian project.

Yes, yes, I know, Barr wrote an article in which he said God was behind it all. I’ve read and re-read the article, and all it goes to show is that Provine was right. “One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

Comments
Let us take this discussion over to "Barr's Private Idaho" please.Barry Arrington
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Detectable???? To the truly vast majority of mankind, it's unmissable; and we know nothing of the complexity of cells. On the recent TV programme, during which indiginous people of a New Guinea tribe were shown looking around the interior of St Paul's cathedral, they marvelled at its architecture and lofty ceiling, remarking that only God could have created it. Similarly, one man was capitivated by the detail of the toes of a statue. I don't think the idea of random self-assembly ocurred to them at all. Can't think why.Axel
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
--Charles: "Barr holds rightly? --"Scripture is explicit on male and female physicality being created by God, not merely “conferred” with soul & spirit, but gender differences having been created, in the beginning." By rightly, I don't mean that I think he is correct, but rather that he has not violated his Catholic faith by believing in common descent. A Catholic, following the encyclical that I alluded to MAY NOT believe that the soul or mind is a product of evolution. However, a Catholic may believe or DISBELIEVE in evolution of the body. In that context, Barr has not violated his Catholic faith. HOWEVER, he has violated his Catholic (and Christian faith) by arguing that biological design is undetectable. It is pure nonsense to suggest that God revealed himself in cosmology and then went back into hiding in biology. Barr, and all Christian Darwinists take that irrational and heretical posture.StephenB
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Jon Garvey, But whilst the “established biological Church” is happy to assume the naturalist metaphysic, a position like Barr’s or Plantinga’s is risking obfuscation (unless being used carefully defined in argument) as is exemplified by the BioLogos confusion. I'm not so sure. Frankly, I don't think Biologos would touch Plantinga's or Barr's definition of science, much less Neo-Darwinism, with a ten-foot pole. While there are some glimmers of better stuff on that site now and then, by and large they seem to go in a vastly different definition than either Plantinga or Barr. And they couldn't take the words of either man and manipulate them in the way they'd like, because they're both alive and may well show up and dress them down. One reason I have sympathy with Barr and Plantinga on this point is because, if their line was taken, it would kill the worst excesses of 'Darwinists' overnight. What would remain is a theory that, whatever utility it had, would be of practically zero use to atheists and naturalists both. I think their solution is correct, and also the best line to take. Unfortunately, they seem outnumbered. (Though Plantinga may well be changing that with his book.)nullasalus
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
nullasalus:
But on B, I’d like to know what more Barr can do other than what he has. He’s a physicist. He’s explained the proper limits and scope of science, limits I think are extremely reasonable and defensible. So what’s the next step?
Well, he could engage the factual issues as Barry presented, couldn't he. He could address himself to what Dembski/Marks argued were possible ways of computing the probabilities of evolution. Surely a physicist is capable of checking his facts and demonstrating where Dembski/Marks erred in their 2009 paper rather than relying on an outdated 2003 critique. If not at First Things where such arguments seem verboten, then here at UD? Perhaps even on this very thread? Or is that beyond the proper limits and scope of science, to engage with one's critics on their most recent findings.Charles
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Deuce, Imagine if Woit, instead of arguing that String Theory is pseudo-scientific pap, were to argue that because String Theory as presented by all of its adherents is pseudoscientific, String Theory must not really say what they say it does, but that according to real, scientific String Theory “properly understood,” there are no strings, and therefore there’s nothing problematic about String Theory after all! I think what Stephen Barr is doing is close to that. Alright, I think I see your point here. I still say that Barr's smarter than this - I think he differentiates between "what science shows us, and what it can show us" and "what some, even many, scientists say". So when he talks about what 'Neo-Darwinism shows and can show' he's doing so while scrubbing all the unwarranted, metaphysical/philosophical crap from it, while recognizing that others present 'neo-darwinism' in a different light. But I have to admit, Barr doesn't stress just how 'his' definition of Neo-Darwinism isn't exactly the one most people encounter. Again, I'd say Barr is absolutely right about the science end of it, but he doesn't highlight the scope of the abuse.nullasalus
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
This reference is also crucial to this debate. http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-12-23/Collin
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Upright, You must be anti-science then. (kidding). This Dilbert strip is illustrative. http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-12-22/Collin
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Null: He’s saying that this is an unscientific use of science, and its proponents are incorrect – and this is why ‘science’ or ‘neo-Darwinism’, properly understood, is science.... It’s a little like Peter Woit on String Theory. What can the guy do other than point out the problems, if he’s in the minority and most of his colleagues think String Theory is fantastic? This is where I disagree. Imagine if Woit, instead of arguing that String Theory is pseudo-scientific pap, were to argue that because String Theory as presented by all of its adherents is pseudoscientific, String Theory must not really say what they say it does, but that according to real, scientific String Theory "properly understood," there are no strings, and therefore there's nothing problematic about String Theory after all! I think what Stephen Barr is doing is close to that.Deuce
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Plantinga makes the same distinction as Barr on the compatibility of Neodarwinism (scientific theory) with theism (even Christianity)as opposed to Neodarwinism (unwarranted metaphysical add-on. I guess it's a moot point which is the real Darwinism, bearing in mind that both go back to Darwin - a bit like the question of whether Islam is what you read in the Quran or what you see in Saudi Arabia (or for that matter whether Christianity is what Jesus taught or what gets practised now). But whilst the "established biological Church" is happy to assume the naturalist metaphysic, a position like Barr's or Plantinga's is risking obfuscation (unless being used carefully defined in argument) as is exemplified by the BioLogos confusion. One question must be: if Neodarwinism were always strictly defined as the scientific theory, how credible would it be? Does not the metaphysics compensate for its evidential weakness?Jon Garvey
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Hi Collin, I understand the marketplace; but I'm justifiably resistent to selectively-imposed demarcation arguments in the hands of ideologues. (which is most often the case)Upright BiPed
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Collin, But so much of the debate over ID (and other things called pseudo science by some) is whether or not it is a science, and if not, it must be religion. I think 95% of the criticisms are ID amount to "some idiot doesn't even know what ID is, but he knows many Christians like it so it must be horrible". Or worse, "some idiot knows what ID is, and knows how reasonable the basic suggestion is, so he tries his best to malign it". Certainly I reject the idea that "if ID isn't science, it must be religion". That's just silly. Historians utilize science to inform their work but they are not scientists. They rely on the validity of ancient texts and records. Would you seek to have ID put in a category like history? Something informed by science but not quite science? Something like that. I think ID in the bare sense of 'ascertaining design' can certainly be argued in a philosophical way, can well be a subjective judgment call that can be spawned off a fundamental belief or worldview, etc. I certainly think ID asks valid questions, and its proponents often make valid criticisms. I think the comparison to history is a good example. Probably not a comprehensive categorization (like I said, I think philosophical arguments for design exist, even though philosophical arguments aren't exhaustive), but it works to a degree.nullasalus
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Upright, I majored in psychology which has, as some have quipped, "physics envy." Psychologists have such a worry about being deemed "non-science" that they emphasize quantification beyond anything else. So, ironically, if you ask a psychologist if science must be quantifiable, he'd likely say yes, yet a physicist may be more likely to say no. But I believe that most scientists would agree that the less quantifiable a subject is, the less scientific it is.Collin
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Deuce, I agree with much of what you say. I'm not nearly so sure that Barr is being a 'useful idiot'. He seems to recognize that scientists are either engaged in or tolerate an abuse of science - when he talks about 'scientists have stood by' and let these abuses take place, I don't think he's necessarily ignorant of why they're standing by or what that means. My position is very similar to Barr's, and I certainly don't think that the abuse of science is limited to a bare few individuals - I've said repeatedly that most of the 'defenders of science' care little for science. I think Barr realizes that 'randomness' is used the way you say it is at times - in fact he seems to acknowledge that explicitly. He's saying that this is an unscientific use of science, and its proponents are incorrect - and this is why 'science' or 'neo-Darwinism', properly understood, is science. I think he's correct on that front. Now, the reply may be 'Sure, but quite a lot of scientists and so-called defenders of science abuse science and declare some things to be scientific that aren't!' I'd agree. I also think Barr agrees. But that wouldn't show his position to be wrong. It'd just show that quite a lot of people aren't holding themselves to the terms Barr defends, for better or for worse. More needs to be done. A lot more. Maybe the way I'd put it isn't that Barr is being a useful idiot - I see Biologos' members as falling prey to that more often - but that A) he may not properly acknowledge the scope of the problem he's talking about, and B) far more needs to be done. But on B, I'd like to know what more Barr can do other than what he has. He's a physicist. He's explained the proper limits and scope of science, limits I think are extremely reasonable and defensible. So what's the next step? While ID may be on 'the same side' in one sense, the ID position is not necessarily the next logical step for someone with Barr's view (indeed, he'd probably regard it as exacerbating the problem, though I take a more practical view of it all.) It's a little like Peter Woit on String Theory. What can the guy do other than point out the problems, if he's in the minority and most of his colleagues think String Theory is fantastic? Clearly something should be done, but the problem seems cultural - and those are damn difficult problems to address.nullasalus
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Nullasalus, I see what you mean. But so much of the debate over ID (and other things called pseudo science by some) is whether or not it is a science, and if not, it must be religion. It seem to me that you want to move out of that framework (which I applaud). When you told me about your gyro-dinner (Superman's dinner? hero dinner? haha) I thought of History (as an academic subject). Historians utilize science to inform their work but they are not scientists. They rely on the validity of ancient texts and records. Would you seek to have ID put in a category like history? Something informed by science but not quite science?Collin
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Science must be quantifiable? The amount of scietific knowledge that would have to be thrown out because it wasn't mathematically quantifiable is large. Scientific pursuits should be quantified if the subject of interest is amenable to quantification, but quantification in and of itself is not a line to be drawn between science and non-science.Upright BiPed
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Barry, I completely agree with your friend. When someone is extremely afraid of conflict and have to do anything to keep the peace, they attack and destroy the party they believe is the weakest in order to end the fight as quickly as possible. We see it at Baylor and other Christian Universities. They are ashamed of their Creationist and/or ID associates and just want them to shut up before the stronger party (mainstream scientists) get mad at them.Collin
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
It is not that materialists are winning and ID is losing, just as it is not that ID is winning and materialists are losing. The evidence is winning, as it always will in the long term. ID needs to concede nothing in terms of evidence. Nothing.Upright BiPed
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Collin, It seems to me that you would posit a third category of knowledge, somewhere between philosophy and science. Sort of a quasi (but not pseudo) science that can uncover and establish truth. But this quasi science is not mere reasoning or mere science. I’m not exactly sure how to categorize it. Some kind of subjective empiricism or something? I had a gyro for dinner last night. Is that a 'scientific claim'? I didn't make a hypothesis and perform any experiments with reference to physical science to arrive at the knowledge. Is it a philosophical claim? No doubt it entails some philosophical views, but I engaged in no logical deduction or otherwise. So it doesn't seem right to call my knowledge 'scientific' or 'philosophical'. Yet I had a gyro. That, I think, is one example of some pretty common knowledge and understanding that is not scientific, nor philosophical. For the record, I think powerful *philosophical* arguments can be made for design in the world. But these philosophical arguments can be as powerful as you like - make them conclusive, and make them establish not just a designer but 'God' - and they won't be Intelligent Design. ID, as I understand it, is tied to the claim that the design inference is scientific.nullasalus
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
I friend writes to tell me: Neuhaus is sadly missed. His successors' position is quite simple: They believe the materialists are winning, and they are seeking terms. They can have their little game unhindered inside their little Christian club while the depredation goes on unhindered outside. Vichy France, anyone? We believe that the materialists are losing. There is no materialist explanation of the origin of the universe, life, evolution, human beings, or the human mind that is not ridiculous, lacking in good evidence (on the rare occasions when anyone even bothers with evidence), and tending toward insanity. So we don't offer terms. We mean to replace them. It's hard to make a simple explanation like this really hard, so that people like Neuhaus's successors can understand.Barry Arrington
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Well, absolutely I’d agree. I’d say design is detectable, but my own view (and I know, I’m the odd man out on this site for this view) is that it’s not scientifically detectable. Incidentally, I'm in this boat too. I think that design is detectable, even that it's *empirically* detectable (in that we rationally infer its existence through information gleaned by the senses). But I would hesitate to call this rational inference science on the grounds that I don't think it's quantifiable in any realistic way. And yes, I don't consider Darwinian explanation for the appearance of design to be science either, on similar grounds. Of course, by the classical definition, wherein science is merely the studied procurement of knowledge (and in which theology is the chief science), I would consider the design inference to be science.Deuce
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
I've read Barr's writings on the subject of evolution for a while, and my take is that 1) Nullusalus is right that what Barr means by "Darwinism" is indeed a different position than what most self-identified Darwinists mean by it, and 2) Barry is right that he's playing the part of the useful idiot. To start with, let's repeat that statement of Barr's about the soul. And what happens to morality and natural-law ethics if neo-Darwinism is right? Nothing, if we recognize that man is not merely a product of evolution. Man is not reducible to matter, not only as Scripture and tradition attest, but also as human reason can discern by reflecting upon its own powers. Barr is right that natural law is not affected if we recognize that man is not merely a product of evolution. But as Barry correctly notes, this is terribly confused. Neo-Darwinism isn't simply the theory that there is such a thing as evolution by natural selection. Even YECs would be neo-Darwinists if that's all it took. Neo-Darwinism holds that the appearance of purpose we see in biology, *up to and including human reason*, is in fact merely a product of evolution by natural selection. The *whole point* of the theory is to explain (away) the appearance of purpose. What Barr is saying here amounts to "Neo-Darwinism doesn't contradict Christianity, as long as we suppose that neo-Darwinism isn't actually true." Exempting the soul from neo-Darwinism is no more compatible with it than exempting the flagellum or the eye. On multiple occasions I've seen Barr argue that "random" doesn't mean unguided or unintended in science, but that it simply means that we are unable to observe any correlations in some data. But just because that definition of "random" is the operative one in Barr's own branch of science (physics) doesn't mean it's the operative one in Darwinian evolution by random variation and natural selection. First of all, it goes without saying that we can't observe any correlations in the variations that have led up to our existence. We can't observe those variations at all because they occurred in the deep past before we were here to see them, so *of course* we can't observe correlations in them! If that's what the "random" in "random variation" meant, Darwin's idea would be too trivial to even be a theory. Additionally, in physics and other practical-application sciences, randomness plays a merely descriptive role. That is, we're simply describing how things appear to us. In Darwinian evolution, however, randomness plays an explanatory role. The whole point of Darwinian explanation is to explain how things that appear to be intended could actually have originated without really being intended. Again, the whole point of Darwinism is to explain the appearance of telos in biology without having to appeal to actual intent. If the randomness referred to by the theory were merely an appearance (which, again, is impossible since biology *appears* non-random, and the "random variations" have no appearance at all since we weren't there to observe them), but were in fact directed and planned, then the explanation for the appearance of intent would be... actual intent, and the Darwinian explanation for that appearance would be no explanation at all. And again, Barr shows extreme naivety when he says the following: Moreover, the scientific community has sat by while certain scientists and philosophers, claiming the authority of science, have waged war against religion using the neo-Darwinian account of evolution as a metaphysical weapon. The reason that the scientific community have "sat by" is because they correctly understand Darwinism to mean the exact same thing that those "certain scientists and philosophers" mean by it. Indeed, it's the exact same thing that DARWIN HIMSELF meant by it! The claim that purpose is an illusion *IS* the theory. Barr's bowdlerized version of Darwinism is particular to him. It's not the "real" Darwinism. I've had a couple combox debates with Barr on this issue myself, and his reasoning basically comes down to this: 1) Scientific theories cannot confirm or deny the existence of purpose. 2) Darwinism is a scientific theory. 3) Lots of scientists and philosophers claim that Darwinism is an explaination for the appearance of purpose in life that denies the reality of purpose, and hardly any adherents of Darwinism disagree with them. 4) But if Darwinism really said what they claim, it wouldn't be a scientific theory. 5) So Darwinism couldn't possibly say what nearly all its adherents say it does, because Darwinism is a scientific theory. c) Therefore, Darwinism is completely compatible with faith. Of course, the error here is obvious: the content of an idea, and what is meant by that idea's adherents, is not affected in any way by Barr's definition of "science." The correct conclusion is that Darwinism isn't science by Barr's definition, but he doesn't want to go there. It's the exact same reasoning he uses to claim that "random" in RM&NS doesn't mean unintended. If it meant unintended, you see, then it wouldn't be science, so that's not what it means! The possibility that lots of scientists in a particular field are dedicated to something Barr wouldn't consider science, and that most others don't really care, is something he just seems incapable of even considering. So, in conclusion, I like Barr, I think he's a sincere orthodox Christian and not a heretic, but I do think he matches the definition of "useful idiot". In fact, I think he matches it better than most theistic evolutionists, because most theistic evolutionists are snakes in the grass who knowingly promote a "strong" view of evolution (the essentially atheistic idea that it's unguided and that purpose is an illusion) while engaging in misdirection to obscure that fact, whereas Barr is a genuine Christian who isn't trying to sell materialism in an underhanded way, but who is being a dupe. But when he says that "neo-Darwinism" doesn't conflict with the faith, most people are going to take that idea to mean the same thing that "Darwinism" means to most people, including Charles Darwin, even if Barr has managed to convince himself that his personal definition has any truck among scientists and philosophers beyond himself. Basically, he's unknowingly encouraging laymen to let their guards down against naturalistic metaphysics.Deuce
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Nullasalus, It seems to me that you would posit a third category of knowledge, somewhere between philosophy and science. Sort of a quasi (but not pseudo) science that can uncover and establish truth. But this quasi science is not mere reasoning or mere science. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize it. Some kind of subjective empiricism or something?Collin
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
I agree with Barr for the simple reason is we don't even know if there is a feasibility so any probability arguments already (wrongly) gives the evos the benefit of the doubt.Joe
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
StephenB
Yes, you are right. Frankly, I have to acknowledge that [Barr's] notion of “soul” is not quite as primitive as I had imagined. He holds, rightly, that only the body could have been the product of evolution and that God “conferred” rationality and free will on man outside the evolutionary process.
Barr holds rightly? Scripture is explicit on male and female physicality being created by God, not merely "conferred" with soul & spirit, but gender differences having been created, in the beginning. How is holding (rightly?) that, contrary to scripture, God did not create Adam and Eve to be distinguished from the athesist view that mankind was not created and Jesus was mistaken or misquoted? Atheists can take any view they like. Followers of Christ, be they Catholic or Protestant, are distinguished by their belief in what Christ has said. While Barr may have distinguished himself slightly from atheists on mind and soul being "conferred", he distinguishes himself indefensibly from Christ's teaching on creation. Barr's religious views are only marginally distinguishable from atheism.Charles
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
A little note as to the interactive scale of reality from Dr. Barr at the site that Mr. Arrington has listed in the OP.
The Scale of the Universe http://htwins.net/scale2/
If you will note in the interactive graph, the logarithmic 'middle' of the scale of sizes is at 10^-4, which is directly between 10^-35 and 10^27. Though this may go unnoticed to the casual observer briefly going through the scale, but right at the 10^-4 mark, right in the middle of the scale, they have listed the little fact that this is where the limit of the visual observation of humans is (As well as where the size of the human egg is). Well 'conscious observation' is a very peculiar thing to have at the middle of the logarithmic scale of reality because in quantum mechanics, as this recent quote I stumbled across makes clear, conscious observation is found to be 'central' to collapsing the quantum wave function to a particle state, i.e. conscious observation is central to 'material' reality:
“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.
Preceding quote is taken from this following video;
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080
Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpDwWetu66fBRlPM7zjA5BpHzcu5wBY7AdB7gOz51OQ/edit
As I've heard said before, sometimes the smallest things reveal the biggest surprises!bornagain77
February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
StephenB, Well, absolutely I'd agree. I'd say design is detectable, but my own view (and I know, I'm the odd man out on this site for this view) is that it's not scientifically detectable. I agree with Barr's general sentiments that the power of science is far more limited than most people appreciate. For the record, Barr seems to take a similar line: "Human reason, unaided by faith, can indeed see convincing evidence of design, Providence, and purpose in nature, but that does not make valid every purported scientific demonstration that God has acted in this specific place or that. "nullasalus
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
--nullasalus, Well, as you know, I still have a problem with Barr's argument that design is "inherent in the evolutionary process" even though it is, nevertheless, undetectable. It sure doesn't square with Romans 1:20. Even you, I gather, would agree that design is detectable, though you, like Peter Kreeft, would say that it cannot be measured. Correct?StephenB
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
StephenB, Fair enough. As I said, Barr's one of the few TEs who I've been impressed with, since he's actually willing to commit to things (God's providence over evolution, God's foreknowledge and foreplanning of evolutionary results, rejection of physicalism about human minds and origins, etc) that, say... the typical Biologos contributor will either stay nebulously silent on, or outright oppose. I can absolutely see ID proponents having disputes with him, since he rejects ID. But in every venue I've seen him in, he doesn't use the typical, condemnable TE moves. At least that's something. If he was playing the Biologos game, it'd be another story.nullasalus
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
--nullasalus: "Does it take him out of the reach of neo-Darwinism as he understands it? I keep pointing out that Barr expressly takes a view of Neo-Darwinism that is at odds with many scientists – and he knows it." Yes, you are right. Frankly, I have to acknowledge that his notion of "soul" is not quite as primitive as I had imagined. He holds, rightly, that only the body could have been the product of evolution and that God "conferred" rationality and free will on man outside the evolutionary process.StephenB
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
1 2 3