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
Dick, "Useful idiot" does not mean what you apparantly think it means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiotBarry Arrington
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PST
Starbuck, Are you asking me about the Fall, the creation or both? I'm not sure why Adam and Eve need to be mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles for the Fall to be true doctrine. I am curious, do you believe in the atonement and resurrection but not the creation and fall?Collin
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PST
@nullasalus: Over and over again Barr has insisted that he believes in an evolutionary account of origins in which the creator’s design is empirically undetectable. Yes, as you say, Barr says God moved the process along, but he did so in a way that is completely invisible. Therefore, contrary to Romans chapter 1, when we stand before God we will, on Barr’s account, be able to say, “I am excused. Stephen Barr insisted your creation was indistinguishable from the world described by Richard Dawkins. How was I to know who was right?” That is the kind of religious view that is indistinguishable from atheism that I am talking about. Christian Barr and atheist Dawkins agree on Darwinism, and they agree that if Darwinism teaches us anything, it teaches us that the acts of God cannot be detected by examining the things he created.Barry Arrington
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST
The creation is a vital doctrine to Christianity and there has to be some hand of God in nature, imho or there can be no Fall and no Resurrection (at least not like Christ’s Resurrection).
If that is the case, then why is Adam and Eve mentioned by Jesus only in the context of marriage, and in Acts not at all?Starbuck
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST
Barry, I'm not sure what's going on at FT and moderation - I think if they were going to allow you to be replied to in the discussion, they should at least have allowed you to stick around to offer that correction about Dembski's paper. But whatever FT's faults are, and whatever Barr's faults are, I disagree that Barr's view of evolution is "indistinguishable from atheism". That may be true in the case of some TEs, but I don't think it rightly applies to Barr. He's said outright that God foreknew and preordained the results of evolution, and - if I recall right - he rejects the claims that evolution takes place without guidance or foresight, even if in the realm of science he upholds that supposed 'methodological naturalism' view. Even the Provine quote illustrates the problem here: Provine specifies naturalistic evolution. But unless Barr has changed his opinion, that's exactly the sort of evolution he does not believe in, even if he believes questions of evolution's guidance and purpose (or lack thereof) are non-scientific questions.nullasalus
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PST
Barry, Your response to Barr would have been enhanced had you resisted calling him an idiot. That's the sort of thing one comes to expect at Panda's Thumb.Dick
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PST
That is a great response. It is a shame they didn't see fit to let it stand. I just went to look and it seems they have delete your reply already.Mike LaFontaine
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST
At first glance I thought this article was entitled "Barry Versus Arrington." I always thought that people who accept that evolution is 100% true but insist that Christianity is also true either see something I can't see or are blind themselves. Maybe I'm a dunce, but no one has been able to adequately explain to me how Christianity can be true and evolution be 100% true. The creation is a vital doctrine to Christianity and there has to be some hand of God in nature, imho or there can be no Fall and no Resurrection (at least not like Christ's Resurrection).Collin
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST
As to probability argument of materialist; Casey Luskin just posted a article about Wolfgang Pauli over at ENV:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html
bornagain77
February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PST
1 2 3