Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BioLogos claims not to be Darwinist after all … and it’s not April 1 either.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Bio_Symposium_033.jpg
O'Leary/Laszlo

Well, at least one of the two title statements is true.

In “Southern Baptist Voices: An Ongoing Series” (February 27, 2012), BioLogos, founded by NIH head Francis Collins, is publishing an article by Bill Dembski and Richard Land:“Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral,” adding as an editorial comment:

BioLogos does not subscribe to Darwinism, but Dr. Dembski has chosen this title and we will respond to it.

What? After all the spouting at the BioLogos site about how Christians must change their theology to accommodate Darwin?

Or that a theory of evolution explicitly promoted by atheists to rule out design is in some way compatible with Christianity, a faith whose creed begins, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and Earth, … ”?

Darwinism: natural selection, acting on random mutation, produces the complex life forms we see around us, so that an amoeba of sorts gradually transforms itself over many generations into a man.

Let me put it like this: If someone informs me that the Catholic Church must change its theology to accommodate Marxism – and then denies he is a Marxist – why should I not send him packing? Who but a Marxist or his useful idiot would demand such a thing?

Or is BioLogos trying to back away from its Darwin-happy roots now? Fair enough, we all make mistakes and some of us admit them. But that raises the question:

What, exactly, is their point? Does BioLogos exist simply to be an airborne plop on the growing ID community?

Folks, the ID community is only one of an increasing number of voices insisting – among other things – on accountability from Christians who flirt with the creation story and all the other stories of materialist atheism and accept the latest materialist nonsense as evidence.

Currently, the atheist creation story is Darwinism, but – to give BioLogos its due – the atheist elite might well come up with a more believable packet in a few years. Given the dismal evidence for Darwinism coming back from the field, it’s no secret that many evolutionary biologists would be glad to exchange it for some other -ism as long as these principles stay intact: No God and no free will.

That won’t happen for a few years though. Darwinism is now one monster of a garbage scow, and it takes a long time to turn a big ship around.

But then won’t BioLogos be right in there – as I suspect – promoting the atheists’ next big thing? Is that what this is about? Repositioning? Stay tuned.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Note: As usual, the atheists are way ahead of the Christian Darwinists (or whatever they are). Atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor, commenting on this “we are not Darwinists” claim as made by materialist atheists, says,

They told us, ‘no one is that kind of Darwinian any more.’

He adds,

We’d be happy if that were so, but there is good reason to doubt that it is.

(sound of rube whistling)

PS: Dr William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy and Richard Land, Director for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Comments
A comment about Ted's thread here.Jon Garvey
April 5, 2012
April
04
Apr
5
05
2012
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
Yes, nullasalus, I was following the thread you cite at BioLogos as well. It may be worth re-visiting here at UD, since Jon Garvey who participated there is also active sometimes here. Can I inquire if the person who put the questions to Darrel Falk and Dennis Venema named 'Crude' is also a participant here at UD? (Would he or she please raise their voice if so...) Ted Davis' presence as a new BioLogos Senior Fellow changes the shape of the discourse imo significantly. Perhaps he would be also willing to chime in if a new thread were opened specifically dedicated to what Darrel and Dennis wrote in reply to Crude and Jon Garvey on that thread and how UD-ID people find it unsatisfactory. I notice several problems with Darrel's and Dennis' comments also, but which are more understandable given the sociology of religion in which 'evangelicals' operate. Notice from Ted's article he just linked on BioLogos from "First Things" 2007, as it relates to comments started by Timaeus about small id and Big ID in this thread and wrt what Darrel just wrote about BioLogos believing in (small id) 'intelligent design': “I believe in intelligent design, lower case i and lower case d," writes Gingrich (a TE). "But I have a problem with Intelligent Design, capital I and capital D. It is being sold increasingly as a political movement, as if somehow it is an alternative to Darwinian evolution.” It does appear that Ted is moving toward reconciliatory language. It might be helpful for UD to host its own conversation about why that thread in particular, as well as perhaps a few others, where Darrel and others have dodged 'undetectable guidance' questions, can be taken as a symptom of what is wrong with BioLogos' approach, as an openly evangelical or even 'Darwinistic' organisation.Gregory
April 4, 2012
April
04
Apr
4
04
2012
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
nullasalus: Re your comment at 62: Indeed! They will talk about "intelligent design" when they speak as (amateur) theologians; they refuse to use the language of design when they speak as biologists. This intellectual compartmentalism runs through the whole project of Biologos. It was because the questioner on Biologos was inviting them to bridge this compartmentalization, and speak of the relationship between biology and teleology, that they made difficulty. Their entire position depends, for its defense, on keeping the relationship between those two things as intellectually murky as possible. ID threatens them, because it attempts to offer the world some clarity on the biology-teleology relationship, and clarity is the last thing Biologos wants. Ironically, ID comes closer to the purpose implied in the name "Biologos" than Biologos itself does, since ID says that logos can be detected in the realm of bios. The Biologos people, given a thousand chances to affirm this, and live up to their name, answer obliquely every time. They speak of providence without defining it, they speak of mystery, they speak of being Wesleyan rather than Calvinist -- they do anything rather than articulate an understanding which theoretically unifies evolutionary biology with divine intentionality. How very sad.Timaeus
April 4, 2012
April
04
Apr
4
04
2012
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT
Gregory, And then we have Falk's comments in this thread. This question was asked:
In your view, is evolution an entirely unguided process? Or was it guided by God, even if not in a way science is capable of detecting?
See the replies from Venema and Falk.nullasalus
April 3, 2012
April
04
Apr
3
03
2012
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
"All of us at BioLogos believe in intelligent design." - Darrel Falk (BioLogos President) http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-five-attitudes-approachesGregory
April 3, 2012
April
04
Apr
3
03
2012
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
I think I understand what Timaeus is saying. You know, there was a guy once called “doubting Thomas.” It’s funny. I can think of any number of literalist Christians in my acquaintance who are sure that the Bible is inerrant but don’t seem to have a very good grasp of what it is all about. The story of “A&E” is the foundational story of an entire worldview and psychology. Everything that is needed to understand reality and the human condition is right there. And yet the story is treated by some as a litmus test. I think it’s possible—in fact I’m quite sure it is—for a Doubting Thomas to struggle with the literal aspects of the story and yet have a strong emotional and intellectual attachment to it as wisdom literature. Now Thomas was obviously attached to Jesus. He was the one who said “Let us go, that we may die with him” when it seemed Jesus was headed for his certain death, and “greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friend.” Also Jesus let the poor fellow touch his wounds. He did not reject him, although he admonished him for his lack of faith. Meanwhile it is quite possible to be a litmus test Christian and not have this self-sacrificing attachment. It is quite possible to cling to the historical literalness of “A&E” and not understand that the story is about the value of life; that it is about choosing self-love over sincere love; that it is about the spirit of emulation that plagues the human race and is the source of all unhappiness, It reminds us of a concert we went to many decades ago at a church in Manhattan, Tallis Scholars, if memory serves. Afterwards, the priest, a rather dour-looking fat little man, pushed his way rudely and relentlessly through the crowd, which surely must have included a few seekers. His doctrine was probably perfect, he looked very impressive in black, but he didn’t really get the point, did he?allanius
March 30, 2012
March
03
Mar
30
30
2012
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Gregory
BioLogos (thanks for Timaeus’ reluctant respectfullness in CAPITALISATION) *IS* openly a Christian organisation. Check the message & don’t unwisely oppose them on this topic. Would StephenB directly suggest that BioLogos is *not* a Christian organisation?! Yes or no?”
In my judgment, Biologos fails to measure up as a Christian organization in at least three ways: First, they reject the clear teaching of Romans 1:20, the central theme of which declares that God’s handiwork is evident in all of nature. For them, God revealed himself in cosmology and went back into hiding in biology. By taking that position, they undermine the rational foundation for Christian belief. Second, they argue for an anti-Christian, non-teleological evolutionary model even as they disingenuously use the rhetoric of teleology. Because they talk out of both sides of their mouth, they refuse to answer a simple question: Did God intend and cause the outcome of evolution through a teleological process or did he leave the result to chance through a non-teleological process? Third, and most important, they claim, falsely and disingenuously, that they have reconciled orthodox Christianity with modern science. On the contrary, they have simply subordinated orthodox Christianity to the pseudo science of neo-Darwinism, for which there is no supporting evidence.
“I answered: “Yes, of course God did decide this!” Mark it: StephenB hasn’t responded to this direct answer.
That isn’t true. I answered very clearly by acknowledging your affirmation and explaining why it was an incomplete and evasive answer. My question persists: Did God intend and cause the outcome of evolution through a teleological process, or did he leave the result to chance through a non-teleological process?
“I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church on this question. Adam and Even were ‘real & historical.’ In this, I also agree with Jews and Muslims. BioLogos has not ‘disproven’ the historicity of A&E.”
In fact, you have not been very clear on the matter. The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the human race, not simply that they existed as historical figures. You have not said that you agree with both elements of the teaching. Do you?
“Does Timaeus agree with the historicity of A&E? No, he seemingly does not. He is welcome to speak plainly otherwise, but has not yet done so convincingly. In previous conversations (documented), Timaeus has rejected the Catholic Church’s view of ‘real, historical Adam and Eve.’”
Even it that is true, and I doubt it, you continue to miss the point. Timaeus, unlike Biologos, does not claim to represent orthodox Christianity or, more importantly, to have reconciled it with neo-Darwinian ideology. Under the circumstances, he is not responsible for defending his own orthodoxy.
“Timaeus’ duplicitious “I don’t insist on it” is a tell-tall sign that he either has no opinion or rejects in his heart the orthodox view of A&E.”
We have already been there. Since Timaeus doesn't claim allegiance to the flag, he is under no obligation to salute it. You cannot afford to display such an insulting tone, especially in the aftermath of so many careless misattributions on your part, including but not limited to, a reckless misrepresentation of Plato on design, a factually irresponsible account of Anthony Flew’s conversion to Deism, a false comparison between Biologos and the Catholic Church on Adam and Eve, and a completely disordered notion of the rationale behind design thinking. In each case, I refuted your egregious errors without piling on or making comments about your proclivity to pass off the products of your imagination as knowledge. I have been very gentle with you.StephenB
March 29, 2012
March
03
Mar
29
29
2012
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
"So an Adam of Eve of 100,000 B.C., or 200,000 B.C., would be possibilities." - Timaeus Possibilities, schmosibilities! Timaeus the Greek, the question is very simple: Yes or no - do you believe a 'real, historical Adam and Eve' lived? Noticing that Timaeus has conveniently dodged his own 'Big ID' vs. 'small id' distinction above, many other questions are still left open by his recurrent equivocations. BioLogos (thanks for Timaeus' reluctant respectfullness in CAPITALISATION) *IS* openly a Christian organisation. Check the message & don't unwisely oppose them on this topic. Would StephenB directly suggest that BioLogos is *not* a Christian organisation?! Yes or no? “did God decide that man was to appear” – Timaues I answered: "Yes, of course God did decide this!" Mark it: StephenB hasn't responded to this direct answer. "The question persists: On the question about Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race, do you, as a Catholic, agree with the science of Biologos or the teaching of the Catholic Church?" - StephenB Though I am not a Catholic Christian, I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church on this question. Adam and Even were 'real & historical.' In this, I also agree with Jews and Muslims. BioLogos has not 'disproven' the historicity of A&E. Does Timaeus agree with the historicity of A&E? No, he seemingly does not. He is welcome to speak plainly otherwise, but has not yet done so convincingly. In previous conversations (documented), Timaeus has rejected the Catholic Church's view of 'real, historical Adam and Eve.' Perhaps it will help to clarify, on my limited fallible understanding, that the 'orthodox' view is that Adam and Even were 'real, historical' persons. This could have been several thousand up to several million years. The main point is the 'historical reality' of Adam and Eve, source of the Fall. Can this be confirmed by Timaeus or StephenB or not? Yes or no. "I don’t 'reject' the orthodox view of Adam and Eve as parents of the human race" ... "I don’t 'reject' the traditional understanding that there was an actual couple who were parents of the race" - Timaeus Timaeus wiping that he is right and that he understands himself correctly; that he is on 'our side' means little if he fundamentally reject the anti-real, historical A&E position. What does Timaeus believe? If Timaeus accepts a real, historical A&E, let him come forth and declare it openly and directly. I do and will declare so and am ready to repeat this claim publically. Timaeus' duplicitious "I don't insist on it" is a tell-tall sign that he either has no opion or rejects in his heart the orthodox view of A&E. "it isn’t necessarily unfaithfulness on the part of a Christian to read the Adam and Eve story in an unhistorical way." - Timaeus AhA! Truth be told. Does Timaeus "read the Adam and Even story in an unhistorical way?" Yes, my belief is that he does. Will Timaeus directly reject this perception or not? I doubt if anything other than equivocation is what Timaeus the Greek is possible of producing, from under his protected sock puppet. "the main failure of Biologos is that it doesn’t have the slightest clue what the project of Christian theology entails" - Timaeus Sadly, I doubt that Timaeus speaks for any particular 'Christian theology' from the inside. Iow, what indication does Timaeus give that he is personally 'in tune' with 'Christian theology' today and what it means to people in society? I doubt Timaeus is affiliated with or regular in attendance with any Christian church. He speaks against the "liberal Arminian-Wesleyan tradition." But what 'tradition' does Timaeus the Greek speak for in a positive sense? I hear a lot of criticism and defense of 'designism' from Timaeus. But (in light of Plato's dialogue) what social-political sense of 'design' does Timaeus claim to represent?Gregory
March 29, 2012
March
03
Mar
29
29
2012
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
StephenB: Thanks for your comments. You've understood the point of my earlier posts, and you are ably defending my position. I appreciate your attempt to elicit an answer from Gregory on the important question about God and evolution. You've captured my question perfectly: How could God have used a Darwinian process, which by nature lacks intentionality, to achieve particular intended ends? This is a question that Biologos -- er, sorry, BioLLLLLLogos -- refuses to answer. Instead they utter, with wooden, programmatic piety: "We know by faith that God's providence is in charge of all things" -- and then affirm a biological mechanism which is incompatible with the very notion of providence. That's theology according to Biologos -- only piety required, no logic necessary. You've also understood that my goal was not to try to establish whose understanding of Adam and Eve was *correct*, but only to establish that the two views being discussed, i.e., that of Biologos (Adam and Eve were merely two out of a large population of anatomically modern human beings, but two who were called into a special relationship with God), and that of the Christian tradition at least up to the time of Pius XII (that Adam and Eve were the first human beings period, and the biological ancestors of every human being since) -- are incompatible with each other. Because of this limited purpose, it was not necessary for me to discuss my own views. However, since you have now asked me to clarify my view, I will make a few points. First, I don't "reject" the orthodox view of Adam and Eve as parents of the human race. Whoever said that about me has confused me with Biologos, where they believe that the orthodox view has literally been disproved by population genetics calculations. Second, I *do* reject a 4004 B.C. date for Adam and Eve. Such a date would be out by at least one order of magnitude, maybe two, if Adam and Eve are to be taken as the only two ultimate ancestors of all human beings. And I say that not for any of the genetics reasons set forth by Biologos, but simply from what we know of human migrations and human settlements, from both historical and prehistorical sources of information. So an Adam of Eve of 100,000 B.C., or 200,000 B.C., would be possibilities. And as far as I know, the major churches -- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, etc. aren't wedded to 4004 B.C., so I don't know that my view here is unorthodox by current standards, though it would be non-traditional, since most people before the Enlightenment did take the Biblical genealogies literally. But for Biologos, even such a very early "old earth" date for Adam and Eve is impossible, because they believe that they have calculated that the earliest primeval couple would have lived about 6-9 million years ago and hence would have been not only non-human, but even non-hominid, pre-human primates. In other words, for Biologos, that first genetic couple who were the ancestor of us all would have been animals on the level of chimpanzees, or lower; "Adam and Eve" thus vanish in a puff of smoke. I don't have confidence in the sort of genetic calculations that are employed to come to such conclusions. Third, while I don't "reject" the traditional understanding that there was an actual couple who were parents of the race, I don't insist upon it. It is certainly possible, from a literary point of view, to interpret the genre of Genesis 2-3 as "myth" (in the technical sense, not the pejorative sense). This interpretation poses certain problems for Western, Augustinian Christianity, and hence for both Catholic and Protestant doctrine, because of the way that Western Christianity has read a couple of statements of St. Paul. But it isn't necessarily incompatible with Christianity as such, provided that the Incarnation is understood to have a function other than as a legal device to wipe away the guilt of "original sin". And indeed, in Eastern Christianity the main purpose of the Incarnation is not as a sin remover, but as an indicator of the possibility of theosis -- the realization of the divine potential in man. So it isn't necessarily unfaithfulness on the part of a Christian to read the Adam and Eve story in an unhistorical way. The problem with Biologos is not that it entertains unconventional readings of Genesis. Theologians do that all the time. The problem with Biologos is that its motivation for its unconventional readings is purely external. It wants to harmonize Genesis with science. It has no deep commitment to the study of Christian theology as something of value in itself. Thus, it will toss out a model like "federal headship" without showing the slightest interest in how the Fathers, the Scholastics or the Reformers would have reacted to the notion. It's enough for Biologos that the federal headship problem solves the biology conflict; then it moves on. The ripple effects of denying various traditional teachings are of no concern to it. And this is facilitated by the fact that the main players at Biologos are from a very liberal Arminian-Wesleyan tradition which really has little use for systematic, rational theology, and is concerned only with personal faith in Jesus as Savior. Those from traditions where orderly theological thought is required -- Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran -- cannot simply pick and choose particular readings of the Bible based on whether they conform to current biology or physics or geology. Every time a reading of the Bible is changed, much of theology -- which is an interlocking network of doctrines -- has to be adjusted, and that is no trivial matter. But this is not evident to those who hold to the shallow, compartmentalized view of reality -- facts belong over here, and feelings belong over there, therefore I can love science and I can love Jesus -- that animates the scientists over at Biologos. The main failure of Biologos, as I see it, is not its outdated neo-Darwinian biology (though of course that outdated biology is why Falk, Venema and Applegate are completely ignored by every serious evolutionary biologist on the face of the planet); the main failure of Biologos is that it doesn't have the slightest clue what the project of Christian theology entails. There hasn't been a regular contributor at Biologos since its inception who is capable of carrying on even an advanced undergraduate discussion of Christian theology, let alone the complex post-graduate level theological discussions necessary to handle the relationship between science and Christian doctrine. I hope this clarifies my own position, Stephen. In any case, it's all I have time for on this thread. If, despite this clarification, others wish to attack me for all kinds of alleged hidden motives, there is nothing I can do about it. I've written honestly and without attempt to deceive. I don't claim to represent perfect orthodox Catholicism or Protestantism. I do claim to know enough about Christian theology to recognize a mass of contradiction, confusion, equivocation, historical ignorance, manipulative proof-texting, studied ambiguity, and outright deception. And that's what I see at Biologos, and that's why I have the right to denounce it in scathing terms for the humbug it is, without setting myself up as a theological model for anyone else to emulate.Timaeus
March 29, 2012
March
03
Mar
29
29
2012
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
I am going to revise my summary of the design argument, because I left out an important component: In every case where an intelligent human agenct is known to be the cause of design, recognizable and empirically verifiable patterns are present in the effects. Some features in nature exhibit those same recognizable and empirically verifiable patterns. Therefore, it is a good bet that those patterns were also caused by an intelligent agent.StephenB
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
------Gregory: “Don’t trust me, but he does reject it. Ask him directly yourself, StephenB. That will give you the reason you seek.” [The claim that Timaeus denies Adam and Eve as first parents of the human race]. I will ask both of you. Timaeus is it true? Gregory, will you provide the evidence in support of your claim? Meanwhile, given your reluctance to respond to my challenge, I will assume that you have misread Timaeus. -----Gregory: “Exactly, on the topic of Adam and Eve, he is defending heterodox Christianity. (But hey, welcome to ID’s Big Tent!)” I said Timaeus was not specifically defending Christian orthodoxy because his focus was on something else, namely putting a searchlight on the false claim that teleological Christianity can be reconciled with non-teleological evolution. That is not even close to saying that Timaeus is defending heterodoxy. Do you always read your preferences into what people say and ignore the clear meaning of their words? Did you do that with Timaeus on the subject of Adam and Eve? ------“‘Toying with,’ however, is not the same as accepting. Kathryn Applegate is a biologist who accepts ‘real, historical A&E.’ Denis Alexander’s white paper speaks of (real, historical) ‘homo divinus,’ via John Stott. Does this make Kathryn and Denis A. (and John Stott) more ‘orthodox’ on the topic of A&E than Timaeus? It would seem so.” I recall Timaeus explaining the difference between merely conceding that Adam and Eve as historical characters and accepting the more definitive [and non-negotiable] teaching that they were the first parents of the human race. It is the latter challenge that Biologos refuses to acknowledge. To that extent, they are, indeed, toying with heterodoxy, just as Timaeus pointed out. It troubles me that you do not grasp the difference. Indeed, I even cited the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the non-negotiable nature of the teaching in question and explained how it is opposed to the Biologos position—after you had mistakenly claimed that the Biologos position was the same as the Catholic position. -----Gregory: “Though it may seem like the only choice to IDists, I don’t accept the ‘design vs. chance’ dichotomy. And I’m not privy to ‘knowing’ how God is (directly or indirectly) involved with biological evolution and/or natural history. As an Abrahamist, I believe G-D intended human beings (to appear) on Earth. Afaiu, this is the orthodox Abrahamic position.” Well, if God intended human beings to appear, and if God created the evolutionary process to realize that intention, then it should be obvious that He intended the process to produce the outcome. It makes no sense to say, as does Biologos, that God chose the evolutionary process to produce man, and then try to walk it back by pleading ignorance about whether or not the outcome of the process was the one God intended. Either God [a] intended and caused the desired outcome through a teleological process or [b] He left the outcome to chance by risking a non-teleological process that could have produced an outcome that He didn’t want. There is no third option, unless, of course, you want to posit direct creation sans evolution. So, which pathway do you choose? -----“Just as with the agnostic Berlinski, I challenge you to find a quotation from Anthony Flew that is kataphatic wrt ‘design,’ i.e. that is not only negatively suggestive, but also positive. ID for Flew is a(n – classical) argument for G-D’s existence; it is not a concept duo meant for 21st century biology.” That isn’t much of a challenge, but I will be happy to respond. From Flew: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it that has emerged from modern science." ------“Flew was *not* suggesting that ‘science’ can discover evidence of ‘design in nature.’ Flew’s ‘response’ was philosophical and not empirical. Even so, his ‘conversion’ to deism is based on apologetics, not science.” It seems that you are hell bent on mischaracterizing Flew’s view even in the teeth of countervailing evidence. For Flew, “modern science,” not Aristotle, was the deal breaker for atheism. -----“Now will you tell us please, StephenB, if your prior faith in G-D has *anything* to do with your acceptance of ‘intelligent design’? Shall we assume, like Gil Dodgen and Timaeus, that you were born into or became religious, a person of faith, *before* you had heard about ID? Iow, as a historical-personal fact, you were religious first and came to believe in/accept ‘intelligent design’ later, right?” No. My Catholic faith, which is also grounded in the philosophical reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas--and the Bible--and Sacred Tradition, causes me to be attracted to Intelligent Design arguments, but it does not persuade me of their validity. I know a good reasoned argument when I read one, and the ID argument is a good one. Here is it in summarized form: In every case where human agency is involved as a cause, recognizable and empirically verifiable design patterns are present in the effects. Some features in nature exhibit those same recognizable and empirically verifiable patterns. Therefore, it is a good bet that those patterns were designed as well. That is a reasonable argument and it has absolutely nothing to do with my faith. -----“As with Timaeus, I would bet the same about StephenB: “He believes in (small) ‘intelligent design’ *because* he believes in God.” Biology here is a red herring.” I accept ID arguments because they are reasonable. I also accept fine-tuning arguments and Big Bang cosmology for the same reason, NOT simply because they are consistent with my faith commitment. An argument does not “depend on” religious faith just because it is “consistent with” religious faith—or even if it is preceded by religious faith. Valid inferences from evidence do not depend on assumptions that presume those inferences in advance. Otherwise, they would not be inferences. As it is, you still do not understand ID as an inference from data to the best explanation. It is not a circular argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the hypothesis. I asked you to read our FAQ section to familiarize yourself with ID methodology. Did you?StephenB
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
As a historical-personal fact- I was brought up catholic, said goodbye to it by the time I was 18, set out to destroy what I was taught by "proving" materialism, saw there wasn't any evidence for materialism, and I now accept that the evidence points to design but I am more than willing and able to entertain other options. OTOH my kids will not be brought up catholic, nor any other religious affiliation, unless they choose. I choose ID because it is a non-religious approach to the question of our existence.Joe
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Let this 'dolt' repeat his simple question to Joe: "Iow, as a historical-personal fact, you were religious first and came to believe in/accept ‘intelligent design’ later, right?"Gregory
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Can you live with a belief in God w/out scientific evidence, Joe?
I can live without a belief in God and accept the evidence for Designer. But I doubt I could live with any "belief" that didn't require evidence/ supporting data. I sure as heck can't live with the belief in materialism because there isn't any supporting evidence.Joe
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
LoL! Gregory, you are clueless. Flew studied the evidence his entire adult life. Only a dolt would think he didn't start looking at the evidence until his 80s. Again I will go with what Flew says over what you say- I have already proven that you misrepresent what others say.
Same question to you, Joe: did your prior faith in G-D has *anything* to do with your acceptance of ‘intelligent design’?
No. I am an IDist because of the evidence. And if anyone steps up and demonstrates matter, energy, necessity and chance can account for it I will accept that (after I have gone through everything they did to make sure). Ya see Gregory if the Bible were refuted today my position wouldn't be fazed. Nice try, but keep fishing....Joe
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Yeah right, you're expecting people to believe a philosopher in his 80s adequately studied 'the scientific evidence' rather than being spoon-fed? Let me appeal to Jon Garvey's statement in #2 of this thread: "Alvin Plantinga makes a good case for belief in God being justified without scientific evidence..." Can you live with a belief in God w/out scientific evidence, Joe? Same question to you, Joe: did your prior faith in G-D has *anything* to do with your acceptance of ‘intelligent design’? ... Iow, as a historical-personal fact, you were religious first and came to believe in/accept ‘intelligent design’ later, right?Gregory
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Gregory, Flew himself said it was the evidence that made him change his mind- specifically DNA-> empirical evidence, not apologetics, but science made him change. And the evidence means it is a positive argument. You just don't give a hoot about facts, and it shows.Joe
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
"I have no reason to believe that Timaeus rejects the orthodox view." Don't trust me, but he does reject it. Ask him directly yourself, StephenB. That will give you the reason you seek. "Timaeus is not defending Christian orthodoxy." Exactly, on the topic of Adam and Eve, he is defending heterodox Christianity. (But hey, welcome to ID's Big Tent!) "Biologos is unorthodox for toying with non-historical notions of Adam and Eve" - Timaeus 'Toying with,' however, is not the same as accepting. Kathryn Applegate is a biologist who accepts 'real, historical A&E.' Denis Alexander's white paper speaks of (real, historical) 'homo divinus,' via John Stott. Does this make Kathryn and Denis A. (and John Stott) more 'orthodox' on the topic of A&E than Timaeus? It would seem so. "God either designed evolution to produce a specific result (man exactly as he appeared) or else he left the result to chance. Which is it?" Though it may seem like the only choice to IDists, I don't accept the 'design vs. chance' dichotomy. And I'm not privy to 'knowing' how God is (directly or indirectly) involved with biological evolution and/or natural history. As an Abrahamist, I believe G-D intended human beings (to appear) on Earth. Afaiu, this is the orthodox Abrahamic position. Just as with the agnostic Berlinski, I challenge you to find a quotation from Anthony Flew that is kataphatic wrt 'design,' i.e. that is not only negatively suggestive, but also positive. Suggesting (as a non-biologist) the 'impossibility of a naturalistic account' does not count as a positive contribution. Where does Flew say 'science (positively) proves (biological) design?' ID for Flew is a(n - classical) argument for G-D's existence; it is not a concept duo meant for 21st century biology. Flew was *not* suggesting that 'science' can discover evidence of 'design in nature.' Flew's 'response' was philosophical and not empirical. Even so, his 'conversion' to deism is based on apologetics, not science. Now will you tell us please, StephenB, if your prior faith in G-D has *anything* to do with your acceptance of 'intelligent design'? Shall we assume, like Gil Dodgen and Timaeus, that you were born into or became religious, a person of faith, *before* you had heard about ID? Iow, as a historical-personal fact, you were religious first and came to believe in/accept 'intelligent design' later, right? As with Timaeus, I would bet the same about StephenB: "He believes in (small) ‘intelligent design’ *because* he believes in God." Biology here is a red herring.Gregory
March 28, 2012
March
03
Mar
28
28
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
------Gregory: “Beautiful. Let’s now put Timaeus the Greek on the spot. Does Timaeus accept the orthodox Christian-Muslim-Jewish view of a real, historical Adam and Eve? No, it would seem that he doesn’t.” I have no reason to believe that Timaeus rejects the orthodox view. From which of his comments did you draw your inference? ------Stop and ask yourself StephenB, if Timaeus is really the ‘purist’ defender of orthodoxy you consider him to be. That he rejects the very “non-negotiable tenet of Christianity” you identify might sway your view. Does his promotion of ‘intelligent design’ trump that ‘non-negotiable tenet’? Timaeus is not defending Christian orthodoxy. He is putting the spotlight of reason on those who falsely claim that Christian orthodoxy can be reconciled with Darwinian evolution. This is why he continues to press you for your view about God and evolution. God either designed evolution to produce a specific result (man exactly as he appeared) or else he left the result to chance. Which is it? ------“Of course, it is obvioius that Behe ‘believes’ in/first believed in ID because he already has faith. The other side of the wedge matters less; Darwin is 150 years old and many post-Darwinian theorists, Christians including Dobzhansky exist. This does not count against the fact that without his religious faith (Roman Catholicism), that is, if he were an atheist, Behe would not have believed in ‘intelligent design.’” Obviously, that is not the case. If, as you say, one could not believe in ID science without first having embraced religious faith, then Anthony Flew, the former atheist, would never have responded to the empirical evidence and become a design thinker. You fail to make three critical distinctions: [a] While ID is “consistent with” religious faith, it does not “depend on” religious faith. Yes, the scientific evidence for design can CONFIRM one’s pre-existing belief in design, but it can also PERSUADE one who doesn’t believe in design to change his position. [b] The psychological motive for becoming an ID scientist has nothing at all to do with the validity of the scientific methods used to draw inferences from data. It is not possible, for example, to extract religious faith from the methodology of “irreducible complexity.” [c] A Presupposition is not the same as an inference. Creation Science, which begins with an assumption about Biblical truth and seeks to justify that assumption with scientific evidence is different from Intelligent Design, which begins with an observation of data and draws inferences.StephenB
March 27, 2012
March
03
Mar
27
27
2012
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
"To deny that Adam and Eve were the 'first parents' of the human race is to deny a non-negotiable tenet of Christianity." - StephenB Beautiful. Let's now put Timaeus the Greek on the spot. Does Timaeus accept the orthodox Christian-Muslim-Jewish view of a real, historical Adam and Eve? No, it would seem that he doesn't. Please keep your focus on Timaeus, StephenB, because he has either dodged or rejected this question in the past with me. Yes, I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church (and other Abrahamic faiths) on Adam and Eve. Does Timaeus agree with them/us, defender of ID as he is at UD? This challenge to Timaeus should be repeated. Stop and ask yourself StephenB, if Timaeus is really the 'purist' defender of orthodoxy you consider him to be. That he rejects the very "non-negotiable tenet of Christianity" you identify might sway your view. Does his promotion of 'intelligent design' trump that 'non-negotiable tenet'? Of course, it is obvioius that Behe 'believes' in/first believed in ID because he already has faith. The other side of the wedge matters less; Darwin is 150 years old and many post-Darwinian theorists, Christians including Dobzhansky exist. This does not count against the fact that without his religious faith (Roman Catholicism), that is, if he were an atheist, Behe would not have believed in 'intelligent design.'Gregory
March 26, 2012
March
03
Mar
26
26
2012
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Timaeus: “Did God decide that man was to appear, and use means, either direct creation, or guided evolution (where God actually steers the mutations), or programmed (“frontloaded” evolution) that *ensured* that man would appear? Or did he instead set up a divine-hands-off stochastic process (Darwinian evolution) which *might* have produced man, but *might not* have? In the latter scenario, man was not inevitable. Biologos is extremely evasive on whether or not God ever formed an irrevocable intention to produce man, such that man’s appearance, given the omnipotent God’s intention, was inevitable. I’m asking you not to be so evasive, but to state your view. God either intended *man* (and not a hyper-intelligent octopus or dolphin, for example) or he did not; and if he did intend man, he either left the production of man to chance, or he did not. What is your view?” Gregory:
The ‘inevitability’ question is one Timaeus should ask to ‘Neo-’ but not to me. Timaeus is demanding I speak for ‘God’s intentions’ and ‘God’s directions.’ I am not prepared or willing to do that and neither is BioLogos, whereas Timaeus seems to want to do so for himself.
Timaeus has asked you the central question about God and evolution. If you have no opinion on the matter, or if you are afraid to disclose it, then you are not even in the game.
No, such a *must* position as Timaeus demands has been rejected by many people, among them the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches (i.e. the world majority of Christians), which both accept ‘the (same) science’ as BioLogos (a population of humans does not deny a Covenant Pair). Timaeus loads the conversation with ‘parents’ and ‘race,’ the latter which he surely cannot ‘scientifically’ prove.
To deny that Adam and Eve were the “first parents” of the human race is to deny a non-negotiable tenet of Christianity. In keeping with that point, the official position of the Catholic Church is, as anyone who cares knows, incompatible with the Biologos position. From Pope Pius XII [Humani Generis] “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” The question persists: On the question about Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race, do you, as a Catholic, agree with the science of Biologos or the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Behe joined the IDM because he believed it was a theologically supportive network, i.e. because believing human beings are ensouled bodies and not just living matter is important.
What do your perceptions about Behe’s motives, which may have been prompted by his faith, have to do with ID methodology, which begins with observation and has nothing to do with faith. You really do have a moral obligation to read our FAQ section so that you can familiarize yourself with basic ID theory, especially since you are hell bent on commenting on the subject at length and spreading your confusion wherever you go. At the very least, you should learn the difference between [a] methods and motives and [b] presuppositions and inferences.
“As a final note, for someone who claims to be a philosopher and humanist and not a natural scientist by training, it is ironic that Timaeus is trumpeting himself as a proponent of “the truth about nature,” when the ‘truth about human society’ seems so dreadfully far from his interest.”
Perhaps it is less about his lack of interest about human society and more about his determination to stay within the context of the subject matter being discussed, a trait that you might well try to cultivate.StephenB
March 26, 2012
March
03
Mar
26
26
2012
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Back from an academic conference in Eastern Europe. During my presentation I mentioned ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design,’ but no one was interested to discuss this. Perhaps it seemed too obvious to them. Finally catching up with old threads, here’s a review and reply to Timaeus: “the distinction between small id and big ID is that small id doesn’t claim it can be proven ‘by (natural) science;’ *all* religious persons in the Abrahamic religions accept small id as given – it is equivalent with ‘belief in Creation’.” – Gregory “By ‘small id’ I meant any argument that infers design (not necessarily God, just design, though of course God could be the designer) from the facts of nature, whether it was written 2500 years ago or today. By ‘big ID’ I meant the formal organization of people sympathetic with such arguments into bodies such as the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent and more generally with prominent people such as Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Nelson. All ‘big ID’ people accept ‘small id’ arguments, but not all ‘small id’ sympathizers want anything to do with ‘big ID’ institutional activities.” – Timaeus If we translate Timaeus’ ancient Greek into my contemporary language (there’s a generational thing here), all ‘Big ID’ people believe in the Abrahamic religions. Timaeus, of course, would beg to differ. Please then show us Buddhist ID proponents and Agnostic ID proponents, like Denton, who hold an incoherent view of science, philosophy and theology. Is Denton really a science-philosophy-religion role model for Timaeus?! Does Jewish-Agnostic Berlinski just attack Darwinian/Darwinistic views (one side of the Wedge) or does he actually actively promote the (Divine) Intelligence behind the ‘design’? Can Timaeus help rescue Berlinski from his apostate views or doesn’t that even matter? It seems to me that Timaeus is simply making things up as he goes along. ‘Big ID’ to Timaeus as an individual means ‘institutional’ (“having id institutionalized as ID”), whereas for most mainstream Christians it means ‘claiming to have proven God’s existence (by implication or directly) using natural science.’ Timaeus seems not to be a mainstream Christian and his rejection of Adam and Eve reveals his heterodoxy. Most religious believers have accepted ‘arguments from design/Design’ for hundreds if not thousands of years. They are ‘small id’ advocates already, regardless of the arrival and natural scientific mission of IDM-ID. The uniqueness of IDM-ID is that it professes that “ID IS (NATURAL) SCIENCE.” Period (plus implications). Iow, ‘(natural) science proves design/Design.’ Plato, however, didn’t think that ‘science’ could prove directly or by implication the existence of God-the-Designer. Plato believed in God as more than just Designer. Plato would not have supported Big ID on this basis. So Timaeus at UD is mimicking a shadow, rather than the real thing. By definition, an Agnostic thinker cannot conclude ‘small id,’ which is a religious position. If one accepts Mind, they are religious already. The universe is Designed; now go and find, seek, inquire which Big ID did it (science, philosophy &/or theology). “I don’t know” (Agnosticism) adds nothing fruitful to the conversation; it is a boring position, simply passing the time in ignorance, not knowing. Berlinski is playing one side of the Wedge with his ‘agnostic’ pro-Big ID position and the IDM welcomes it because it is still wedge-sensitive. “Long after Discovery has ceased to exist…” – Timaeus Here is a clear example of Timaeus speaking not for the IDM, but for Timaeus-id/ID. This is not surprising since many folks tend to jump on a bandwagon that others have organised. Timaeus seems to seek some kind of credibility in IDM-circles (like UD) for honking the IDM’s horn (while at the same time rejecting the ‘ID is Science’ claims). Yet it is strange that he fails to see how his arguments actually undermine the ‘institution’ he speaks so highly about. IDM people have not considered yet “after Discovery (Institute) has ceased to exist.” “whether or not there is intelligent design in nature.” – Timaeus Such is the current naturalistic perspective of ‘intelligent design’ theory. It is only relevant ‘in nature’ but not ‘in society’ or ‘in culture’ or 'in politics' or ‘in technology.’ Timaeus, like most IDists thus privileges ‘nature’ as the rightful source of ‘designism,’ while the proper realms of ‘design’ he leaves predominantly untouched. “I was an ‘id’ supporter long before I had even heard of ‘ID’.” – Timaeus Yes, join the crowd. He doesn’t think one can prove ‘intelligent design’ using ‘natural sciences’ either and has said as much in previous messages. He believes in (small) ‘intelligent design’ *because* he believes in God. That his belief in God need not lead him to believe in ‘Big [Institutional] ID’ – that ‘science’ can prove ‘design in nature’ – is understandable and explains why BioLogos (an opponent Science vs. Religion institution) rejects the IDM. That they reject ‘scientific proofs’ of God remains the strongest (and most reasonable) argument from BioLogos (which both Timaeus and nullasalus have REFUSED to dignify with proper capitalisation), TE and EC against the IDM (even though the IDM equivocates with what ‘implication’ design/Design actually means in the theological realm). Such is the culture war status in contemporary USAmerican 'civilisation.' Thus, when Timaeus says “I thought, and still think, that the arguments for design in nature are persuasive,” what he really means is that he accepts ‘natural theology.’ Theology for Timaeus is not just ‘revealed theology,’ which is why he can so easily jettison the idea of a ‘real, historical Adam and Eve,’ i.e. the orthodox (revealed) Christian view of Scripture. That Timaeus rejects real, historical A&E is why he lauds Peter Enns and Dennis Lamoureux at BioLogos, while criticising only the apparent (though perhaps not ‘real’) ‘(neo-)Darwinism’ displayed at that website. As a non-evangelical Christian Timaeus does not appropriately represent the theological arena in which BioLogos operates. Timaeus seems to love the liberal (anti-orthodox) theology that speaks against real, historical Adam and Eve, while at the same time he enjoys protesting (as an unqualified non-biologist) against BioLogos’ (‘liberal’) acceptance of the current standard views of biology (which according to orthodox Abrahamic religion cannot disprove God’s existence). “did God decide that man was to appear” – Timaues Yes, of course God did decide this! Here we are. But that has absolutely nothing to do with 'intelligent design theory,' right (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)!? Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures claim ‘real, historical Adam and Eve,’ while Timaeus the Greek-post-modern American protests against them/us using biological science and (heterodox) liberal theology. If he were a conservative, Timaeus would quite obviously accept real, historical A&E, but he doesn’t and isn't. The ‘inevitability’ question is one Timaeus should ask to ‘Neo-’ but not to me. Timaeus is demanding I speak for ‘God’s intentions’ and ‘God’s directions.’ I am not prepared or willing to do that and neither is BioLogos, whereas Timaeus seems to want to do so for himself. “So if you accept the science of Biologos — as you appear to — you *must* reject the idea that Adam and Eve were parents of the race.” – Timaeus No, such a *must* position as Timaeus demands has been rejected by many people, among them the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches (i.e. the world majority of Christians), which both accept ‘the (same) science’ as BioLogos (a population of humans does not deny a Covenant Pair). Timaeus loads the conversation with ‘parents’ and ‘race,’ the latter which he surely cannot ‘scientifically’ prove. Unfortunately, it seems that Timaeus has swallowed some kind of anti-Adam bias somewhere in his personal philosophy or theology. Perhaps this explains his attraction to Big ID (because it supposedly takes no opinion on A&E, expressing no reflexivity and ignoring the idea that humans are ‘created imago Dei’), which is 'uncommitted to Genesis'? Michael Behe’s meaning (as a Roman Catholic religious believer who happens to be a natural scientist) is that (capitalised) ‘Intelligent Design in nature’ comes inevitably from a Divine source. There’s no chicken and egg discussion needed here; Behe defends small id and Big ID because he already believes (in) it/them. Whether one wants to refer to this as ‘natural theology’ or as a ‘revealed theology’ of nature is not that important. The ‘mind’ that Behe ‘infers’ is appropriately capitalised as ‘Mind’ in the Christian tradition. (Berlinski to the IDM is as irrelevant as Ruse to BioLogos) Behe joined the IDM because he believed it was a theologically supportive network, i.e. because believing human beings are ensouled bodies and not just living matter is important. Jonathan Wells among others knows what I mean in saying this. Timaeus would accept Behe’s ‘natural theology,’ while personally rejecting BioLogos’ perception of ‘revealed theology.’ This is probably because Timaeus is not a Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian and can thus interpret Scripture however he so chooses, even if it means denying revealed theology ‘in nature’ or 'real, historical A&E.' So, who should anyone take Timaeus’ personal ‘revealed theology’ seriously without the authentic claim of Ecclesial sanction? What 'church' does Timaeus the Greek, pre-Christian (or non-Christian) stand for on the periphery (dustbin) of historical ideas? As a final note, for someone who claims to be a philosopher and humanist and not a natural scientist by training, it is ironic that Timaeus is trumpeting himself as a proponent of “the truth about nature,” when the ‘truth about human society’ seems so dreadfully far from his interest. Why does he not care about or seek to promote the many ‘design theorists’ who can actually speak about ‘designer’ and ‘designing’? Where are Laszlo, Banathy, nay even Dobzhansky or Teilhard de Chardin in his 'anti-(neo-)Darwinian' hyper-activism? As a person who studies societies and peoples around the world, for me to hear Timaeus speak of Big ID as an ‘institution’ concentrated solely on ‘design in nature,’ whereas there is so much designing/creating/building/making/constructing/composing/developing going on all around us by the one ‘intelligence’ that we know best, i.e. human intelligence, strikes me as astonishingly myopic. ‘Real design,’ not only as a divine ‘origin/creation,’ but also as a (co-created) process that Timaeus and the IDM seek, is widely available. Just open your ears and eyes and 'proof' will find you! They simply need to knock on the door and it will be answered, to seek and they shall find ‘designing’ by ‘intelligent agents’ happening on a daily basis.Gregory
March 26, 2012
March
03
Mar
26
26
2012
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
What ‘other’ intelligence(s) than ‘human intelligence’ did you have in mind? The same spread Dembski and others refer to. Advanced civilizations. Aliens. Demiurges. Gods. Matrix-style simulations. Etc. Intentional, planning beings. But perhaps you imagine it is me who is ‘dehumanizing’ the notion of intelligence rather than yourself? Who accused anyone of 'dehumanizing'? I'm just stating ID as I interpret its most notable proponents to conceive it. This goes back to the question of "Just what is SETI doing?" and how can Stephen Hawking talk about what aliens are likely to do should they encounter earth and such. And, of course, concepts of God as well.nullasalus
March 16, 2012
March
03
Mar
16
16
2012
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Thanks for that, nullasalus. Especially appreciated the link to Kambiz Kamrani and the story about AAA, science, etc. Will follow-up in response sometime soon. Timaeus awaits also. Can I ask again shortly, however, re: what you wrote, since it was bolded & you seem to have missed it: “ID proposes to infer intelligence. Not just human intelligence.” – nullasalus What ‘other’ intelligence(s) than ‘human intelligence’ did you have in mind? Believe it or not, this question actually makes a difference in how one views 'anthropology' in relation to the IDM. The notion of which 'intelligence(s)' is/are implied by ID still seems rather fuzzy, dressed in probabilistic appearances. Like I said above, when I hear 'intelligence' I think 'human intelligence' (or 'artificial intelligence,' which is human-made) But perhaps you imagine it is me who is 'dehumanizing' the notion of intelligence rather than yourself?Gregory
March 16, 2012
March
03
Mar
16
16
2012
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
With you, I agree that “the world is rife with teleology and design.” But we differ in that I think science as science uncovers its presence or lack every single day. Code-breaking is just one simple example. And I think once you decipher (ha ha) what code-breaking is and involves, it becomes harder to justify the relevant aspects of it as science. I admit this gets touchy due to "soft science" considerations. Ascertaining ‘design’ and ‘teleology’ is done on a regular and common basis in a variety of scholarly fields. No doubt it is. Not all "scholarly fields" are part of "science". And not all claims that are considered science are done rightly so in my view. No, the contention is not that “it’s all a big political game,” but rather that BioLogos is actually being communicatively smart (wouldn’t have ever thought I could say that!) in refusing to use the same language as the IDM. Timaeus’ ‘is it guided or directed and if so, how?’ hounding biological questions to me completely avoid/ignore the communicative issue: why accept the language of one’s opponent if in doing so one would concede their argument already? Yeah, they're so "communicatively smart" that they give off the impression of not believing in any kind of guidance or design in evolution whatsoever, and indeed in believing the process is bereft of both. They deal with the communicative issue by not communicating with clarity at all. And they put you in the unenviable position of having to defend them in the face of some pretty basic questions on the grounds of "no, no, I know their strategy, there's a reason they dodge all this left and right!" Are you suggesting that G-d lacks freedom?! Surely you’re not so Closed as to condemn ‘Open Theism’ entirely? Gregory, even "open theists" typically won't go so far as to insist that evolution, much less nature, is granted freedom to the point that God had absolutely no idea what would result from the process, much less that He engaged in absolutely no intervention during it. And if that were fundamental to open theism, then yes, I'd condemn it outright. I condemn Ayala's view of God. I condemn Ruse's inane offering of a God compatible with "Darwinism". All one need read is “Perspectives of an Evolving Creation” (2003) to recognize that BioLogos accepts that God directs/guides/oversees/influences/etc. the (natural) ‘evolutionary process.’ No, one doesn't, because one would realize that PEC was written well before Biologos' establishment. And if you say "Well, the book was referenced positively in some individual posts or has been recommended", then I'm going to go right back to Ruse's and Ayala's treatment on Biologos. I've asked you to go to Biologos' president and ask him to confirm that Biologos' position is that God - in whatever way - knew of, orchestrated, guided, designed and/or preordained the results of evolution. You won't take my bet, because you'll lose. You know you'll lose. And saying "well I'd lose because Falk is just a samurai master at playing the language game" doesn't help your contention here. Are you suggesting that Ayala and Ruse are ‘representative’ of the BioLogos leadership and BioLogos’ mission, nullasalus? Or is it possible that they are simply using Ayala and Ruse for certain purposes, which further their mission? I'm suggesting that Ayala and Ruse's views on God have been presented at Biologos, apparently without criticism by the organization's leadership. I'm suggesting that Ayala's and Ruse's views of God are, frankly, insipid - particularly for what motivates them in Ruse's case. And I think anyone who would seriously suggest to me that Ayala and Ruse are being "used by Biologos" in some tactically brilliant way is a poor tactician, and someone who doesn't realize that Ayala and Ruse may well be the ones who used Biologos. When Ayala and Ruse are treated by Biologos as people whose theological views are in sync with Biologos' mission, to the point where Biologos believes they can give them a platform to propose their ideas, yes - I think it's not only reasonable, but important, to press Biologos on what they really mean and believe. And I'll note again, you can't defend them on this aside from vague suggestions of their apparent tactical brilliance. Again, it seems to me that rejecting YEC among evangelicals (which likewise seems not to include you) is BioLogos’ main task; since both Ayala and Ruse also reject YEC, as biologist and philosopher of biology, they seem appropriate contributors. Buddy, the problem isn't that Ayala and Ruse aren't Christians, or even theists. If they simply cited articles by both arguing why some form of evolutionary theory is true and therefore why YEC is false, I wouldn't have brought them up. In both cases, they take the position - and in Ruse's case, he was allowed to do a guest post to do this at length - that God had absolutely no idea what the results of evolution would be. Indeed, Ruse says explicitly that God's knowing, certainly choosing, what the results of evolution would be - *even* in an open theism sense, where God chose some things but not all things - conflicts with science as he presents it. One of the main criticisms YECs and many ID-friendly Christians alike have of standard evolutionary theory is their belief that said theory commits one to the very views that Ayala and Ruse insist on. Yet this is precisely the area where Biologos' members keep their mouths shut, and speak only in the vaguest terms. One more time - if you consider this tactical brilliance, I question your tactical thinking. This doesn’t seem consistent with a Catholic view of history. It doesn't seem consistent with a Protestant view of history either. Likewise, if you don’t think having a credible (catholic?) anthropologist in the IDM is important, you’re obviously missing the forest for the trees. Why? It's not like anthropology has much to do with science. More than that, I imagine IDM proponents would be fine with quite a lot of people, in quite a lot of fields, joining up and considering the design question from their perspective. Values, beliefs, purpose, plan, and ethics is where the most meaningful dimension of ‘the controversy’ over ‘evolution(ism)’ lies. Wouldn’t you agree, nullasalus? Probably not, since you apparently mean different things than I do by some of the relevant terms there.nullasalus
March 16, 2012
March
03
Mar
16
16
2012
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
“ID proposes to infer intelligence. Not just human intelligence.” – nullasalus What ‘other’ intelligence(s) than ‘human intelligence’ did you have in mind, nullasalus? “I think the world is rife with teleology and design, I just don’t think science as science can determine its presence or lack.” – nullasalus With you, I agree that “the world is rife with teleology and design.” But we differ in that I think science as science uncovers its presence or lack every single day. Code-breaking is just one simple example. Pattern recognition is not limited to biology or botany, but is applied in other fields too. Ascertaining ‘design’ and ‘teleology’ is done on a regular and common basis in a variety of scholarly fields. Though it may not be the ‘kind’ of ‘design/Design’ the IDM has in mind, it nevertheless surely counts as ‘design’ and ‘teleology.’ “So, your suggestion is that it’s all a big political game…?” - nullasalus No, the contention is not that “it’s all a big political game,” but rather that BioLogos is actually being communicatively smart (wouldn’t have ever thought I could say that!) in refusing to use the same language as the IDM. Timaeus’ ‘is it guided or directed and if so, how?’ hounding biological questions to me completely avoid/ignore the communicative issue: why accept the language of one’s opponent if in doing so one would concede their argument already? “They actively talk about God’s ‘freedom’” – nullasalus Are you suggesting that G-d lacks freedom?! Surely you’re not so Closed as to condemn ‘Open Theism’ entirely? That would seem more hyper-Calvinistic than Catholic. In my view it would be helpful both for ID and TE/EC to have a serious discussion about Open Theism and Process Theology, given BioLogos/TE/ECs proclivity to processism and IDs focus on originism. This sci-phi-theo question might go far to enable fruitful discussion between IDs and TE/ECs. “maybe Biologos isn’t actually committed to design and guidance in the sense we’re speaking?” – nullasalus Yes, that is probably obvious to most people. Language choice! They are committed to ‘good science’ and at the same time fail by capitulating to weak philosophy of science. “ID gets pounded on Biologos as much as or more than YEC.” – nullasalus Yes, it seems this is the case. One might have thought that BioLogos would have more in common with ID than YEC (e.g. RTB), especially since both attract mainly ‘evangelicals’ (cf. Dembski 2003). That they have found a way to compete with each other, however, is not surprising given the (USA) socio-cultural environment in which they both function and the history of creationism vs. evolutionism there. All one need read is “Perspectives of an Evolving Creation” (2003) to recognize that BioLogos accepts that God directs/guides/oversees/influences/etc. the (natural) ‘evolutionary process.’ My words only indicate what TE/ECs have written in publications, not just on BioLogos. ‘Proof’ of this has been available for almost a decade, while ID otoh seeks to ‘prove’ the existence of ‘design/Design’ in unusual fields. Are you suggesting that Ayala and Ruse are ‘representative’ of the BioLogos leadership and BioLogos' mission, nullasalus? Or is it possible that they are simply using Ayala and Ruse for certain purposes, which further their mission? Again, it seems to me that rejecting YEC among evangelicals (which likewise seems not to include you) is BioLogos’ main task; since both Ayala and Ruse also reject YEC, as biologist and philosopher of biology, they seem appropriate contributors. That neither of them is evangelically religious need not impede their participation in anti-YEC writings, a theme on which unfortunately ID is not intent to participate. “even man’s own appearance was a big surprise” – nullasalus This doesn’t seem consistent with a Catholic view of history. Likewise, if you don’t think having a credible (catholic?) anthropologist in the IDM is important, you’re obviously missing the forest for the trees. Values, beliefs, purpose, plan, and ethics is where the most meaningful dimension of ‘the controversy’ over ‘evolution(ism)’ lies. Wouldn’t you agree, nullasalus? “The history of the anti-evolution debates in the United States is less about biology and more about morality.” – William Grassie BioLogos’ ethics are (until proven otherwise, evangelical) Christian ethics; their history, philosophy and sociology of science (HPSS) reaches only a kindergarten level. p.s. still wondering why no respect from nullasalus for the capitalisation of 'L' in BioLogos...Gregory
March 16, 2012
March
03
Mar
16
16
2012
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Gregory (36): You wrote: "My answer to Timaeus’ hounding questions: 1) There do seem to be errors in Darwin’s biology (e.g. D. Allchin 2009), such that a ‘post-Darwinian’ or ‘non-Darwinian’ approach in natural-physical sciences seems necessary today. Whose ‘Name’ should be on it? I don’t know. Do you?" Gregory, by "Darwinian biology" I meant more than Darwin's view. Darwin's view was superseded by neo-Darwinism, which became the active representative of "Darwinian" thought from about 1935 onward. And that's the view that Darrel Falk was steeped in when he went to school. I specified the contents of this view -- random mutations filtered by natural selection. Do you believe that mutations, *unguided by any intelligence*, filtered by nothing but "natural selection," could make a man out of a bacterium? Could produce an eye, a cardiovascular system, a human brain? Either you believe that or you don't. Or have you not made up your mind whether or not you believe it? You then wrote: "2) Guided, steered, directed, planned – are these not examples of Providence? I don’t know what ‘so that man was inevitable’ means. It sounds like it could impinge upon Divine freedom, which I wouldn’t accept. Here we humans are today; are we called to reverse engineer ourselves by studying nature as ‘divine technology’?" Gregory, in your first sentence you answer a question with question. (And to make matters worse, in your question you include an undefined term, "Providence," which means very different things to different people.) Instead of a question, give me an answer: in your opinion, was evolution either guided/steered (God directed the process through personal intervention, to keep it on course) or programmed/planned (God set up an automated process that, without any intervention, *had* to go one way and not any other)? When I said "man was inevitable" I was not impinging upon divine freedom. What I mean by it is: did God decide that man was to appear, and use means, either direct creation, or guided evolution (where God actually steers the mutations), or programmed ("frontloaded" evolution) that *ensured* that man would appear? Or did he instead set up a divine-hands-off stochastic process (Darwinian evolution) which *might* have produced man, but *might not* have? In the latter scenario, man was not inevitable. Biologos is extremely evasive on whether or not God ever formed an irrevocable intention to produce man, such that man's appearance, given the omnipotent God's intention, was inevitable. I'm asking you not to be so evasive, but to state your view. God either intended *man* (and not a hyper-intelligent octopus or dolphin, for example) or he did not; and if he did intend man, he either left the production of man to chance, or he did not. What is your view? Then you wrote: "3) I believe in a ‘real, historical’ Adam and Eve, in line with Orthodox and Catholic teachings, and what appear to be the beliefs of most mainstream Protestants, along with Jews and Muslims. I’ve decided to give ‘BioLogos as a whole’ the benefit of the doubt on this, given that they appear to have back-peddled from their earlier focus on disproving the ‘real, historical’ A&E (e.g. Venema and Lamoureux). Denis Alexander’s white paper speaks of homo divinus (which he attributes to John Stott 1968), BioLogos has allowed David Opderbeck to argue for the historicity of A&E and Falk told me personally that at least one major contributor there accepts historical A&E, while he is personally agnostic on the topic. So, it now seems to me that BioLogos has not actually, in Timaeus words, ‘ruled out the existence of that couple,’ even if several BioLogos/TE/ECs lean in that direction." Gregory, you have partly misconstrued the debate at Biologos. The debate at Biologos was between those (Lamoureux) who said that the Adam and Eve story was purely mythical, and between those (Alexander, later echoed by Opderbeck) who said that Adam and Eve were a real couple, the first to be in the image of God, but not the actual ancestors of all human beings, since there were human beings (hominids) all over the place at the time Adam and Eve lived (whether you place that at 6000 BC or 100000 BC). When you say that Falk is neutral, you have to understand that he is neutral between *those* two positions. He is *not* neutral regarding the view held by conservative evangelicals, i.e, that Adam and Eve were not only historical people but were also the ancestors of all humans. He and every single writer at Biologos agree that there was never a "first couple" of that sort. And they take this position because they think that genetics proves that there could not have been a first human couple, but only a first human population of about 10,000 individuals. So if you accept the science of Biologos -- as you appear to -- you *must* reject the idea that Adam and Eve were parents of the race. You can accept that they were the first couple endowed with the image of God, but not that they were parents of the race. And if they were not the parents of the entire race, then the Christian tradition has been laboring under an error for 2,000 years. So either Biologos is wrong, or the Christian tradition has been wrong. Which is it?Timaeus
March 9, 2012
March
03
Mar
9
09
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Gregory (36): You wrote: "As far as I make sense of it, the distinction between small id and big ID is that small id doesn’t claim it can be proven ‘by (natural) science;’ *all* religious persons in the Abrahamic religions accept small id as given – it is equivalent with ‘belief in Creation.’ Otoh, big ID (iow capitalised), which Timaeus links with Behe, and thus by implication with the IDM, means that ‘Intelligent Design in nature’ comes from a Divine source, which Behe and Dembski both admit is their (non-scientific) view. Saying big ID can be detected by ‘natural scientific methods’ means using faith in one’s natural science (or equating aliens with the Divine). That’s how I see it. Perhaps Timaeus would like to distinguish them differently, since he was first to raise the distinction? I agree that the distinction is meaningful." Since you invite me to explain what I meant, I will. And it was not what you guessed. By "small id" I meant any argument that infers design (not necessarily God, just design, though of course God could be the designer) from the facts of nature, whether it was written 2500 years ago or today. By "big ID" I meant the formal organization of people sympathetic with such arguments into bodies such as the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent and more generally with prominent people such as Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Nelson. All "big ID" people accept "small id" arguments, but not all "small id" sympathizers want anything to do with "big ID" institutional activities. Thus, Plato and a whole host of philosophers would be "small id"; so would Paley's argument about the watch and the watchmaker; so would Lecomte du Nouy's argument back in the 1950s. But of course none of these people would be formally part of "ID" as a modern social institution, which cannot be dated earlier than the Pajaro Dunes conference in the early 1990s. Note also that neither "small id" nor "big ID" requires commitment to Christianity. Denton, a small-id person, is not a Christian, and David Klinghoffer, a Discovery fellow and hence a big-ID person, is an orthodox Jew. In fact, neither "id" nor "ID" requires a commitment even to theism. Dave Scot, who used to run this place, was an agnostic. I hope this clarifies my meaning. As for my reason for making the distinction, often people denigrate intelligent design, because they don't like this or that aspect of The Discovery Institute, or of Uncommon Descent. But "intelligent design" is older, bigger, and more important than any modern institution that tries to champion it. Long after Discovery has ceased to exist, long after Discovery's foes have ceased to exist, philosophers and scientists and lay people will still be arguing about whether or not there is intelligent design in nature. Thus has it ever been, thus shall it ever be, world without end. I was an "id" supporter long before I had even heard of "ID". I thought, and still think, that the arguments for design in nature are persuasive. But of course the public has been taught by decades of propaganda by scientists and popular science writers that "science" has shown that there is no design in nature, that design is only apparent, that really it can all be explained by chance and natural selection and so on. The advantage of having id institutionalized as ID is that dissenting scientists can be mobilized, and given a platform from which to challenge the massive and well-funded consensus which controls most of the universities and major newspapers and magazines and public television in the country. That's why I support big-ID, even though I have misgivings about some of the ways in which its personnel conduct themselves. In the modern world, you need to use the media to make sure people hear your minority voice, or your view will be crushed underfoot. ID as an institutional movement is not perfect, but the world is better off because ID exists. People have a greater chance of hearing the truth about nature today than they did before the Pajaro Dunes meeting. Any sins of omission or commission by ID people pale in comparison with that.Timaeus
March 9, 2012
March
03
Mar
9
09
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Gregory, As a so-called ‘historical science’ (Meyer) that ‘infers causes known to produce certain effects,’ yes, human intelligence *is* inferred by IDists, in examples such as Easter Island, Mount Rushmore and the mousetrap. And still, ID proposes to infer intelligence. Not just human intelligence. Right or wrong, their inferences are supposed to be broader than that. Are you a general teleologic proponent nullasalus, given that you are not here to advocate for ID? I suppose I am. I think the world is rife with teleology and design, I just don't think science as science can determine its presence or lack. So, that is why it is frustrating to see IDists play two faces when it suits them; theology is personally important to a vast majority of them, but they want to speak mainly about the so-called ‘science of ID’ as if there is no ‘bridge’ or overlap between science and theology. I don't see it as two-faced at all. It's a recognition of the limitations on the part of science as ID proponents view the term and methodology. To suggest BioLogos folk don’t believe G-d ‘orders’ and ‘guides’ the world just because they don’t openly say it is a bit like expecting one’s political opponent to use terms from one’s own platform in order to score points with voters for their own independent, and in this case, more religiously-oriented platform. So, your suggestion is that it's all a big political game, and that they really - to a man - believe that God guided evolution and knew of its outcomes, but they just can't say that? If so, sorry - it's terribly unpersuasive. Sometimes a politician never clearly takes side X when he speaks, not because it's all a carefully crafted game and he has to choose his words properly, but because he rejects X. It's not merely that Biologos' members, even leadership, don't say this when asked. They actively talk about God's "freedom", I've cited multiple examples of their praising or hosting thoughts by people who explicitly take the position that God had no idea of what the results of evolution would be and that nature, particularly evolution, is entirely unguided. In those cases, one is an atheist, and the other is probably an atheist. These are an example of the "friends of Biologos" whose thoughts they see fit to be a platform for in guest posts. And you think it's unfair to suggest that, in the face of all this and more, maybe Biologos isn't actually committed to design and guidance in the sense we're speaking? C'mon. BioLogos caters to USAmerican evangelical Protestant Christians and is more concerned with (at long last!) cleansing the nation of young earth creationism that opposes *all* &/or *any* types of evolutionary theories, than of anything else. Funny. Behe, Denton, and other ID proponents are not opposed to *any* and *all* types of evolutionary theories - yet ID gets pounded on Biologos as much as or more than YEC. Ah, but you say pounding on ID was a good PR move. Gregory, do you really believe what you're saying? It’s up to you folks to find someone at BioLogos who actually accepts the label of ‘Darwinist’ or imo you’re just setting yourself up tribally in judgment of ‘outsiders.’ Actually, it's up to you to find someone at Biologos who actually takes the position you insist they do, and admits to it openly and blatantly. So far the absolute best you've been able to say is, 'Of COURSE they do. I mean, they're Christians right? All Christians believe this. It's just a game. They're pretending they don't, that's all! A very consistent, 24/7, game. It's rather like how Obama is pro-life. His voting record? His words to the contrary? His support of pro-choice legislation? It's all a cover, man. You don't want him to blow his cover, do you? How tribalist.' Not exactly compelling. I don’t read the works of Ayala or Ruse at BioLogos as representative of BioLogos’ primary mission and would advise them not to include these persons in the future. Pity they don't listen to you, eh? Maybe that's the problem here. You don't seem to be defending Biologos when I point out the problems with their organization. You're defending some kind of odd, imaginary Biologos that you hope existed. Gregory's Biologos is orthodox, explicitly committed to the view that God guided evolution and certain oversaw and intended the results of it, including man. Gregory's Biologos doesn't suggest that evolution is completely unguided, such that even God had no idea of any of its outcomes in advance (much less made sure those outcomes came to pass), God included. But Gregory's Biologos stands at odds with the real Biologos. The one that only recently backed off on its suggestion that Adam and Eve never existed (and even as much as it backed off, it still has prominent members who deny or are quiet on the question), the one that praises and hosts evolutionary views as given by Ayala and Ruse, the one that repeatedly talks of God 'granting freedom' to nature (meaning God had no idea of or control over nature such that even man's own appearance was a big surprise), etc. Why has Denton’s name remained so long if he is now independent from the DI? As far as I am aware, Denton's name appearing on the ID list is a recent change. He was absent for a long time. Even his wikipedia page mentions this, since it hasn't recently been updated. There are no credible anthropologists in the IDM Also, the vast majority of fish are without bicycles.nullasalus
March 9, 2012
March
03
Mar
9
09
2012
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
I’d like to note something first, which makes me feel as if it doesn’t matter what I say, Timaeus will always have an answer for it and seek to ‘debate’ me. Timaeus asked for a ‘positive doctrine’ about ‘creation, evolution and design’ from me. I responded saying I’ve written a book about this involving ‘intelligent design,’ which will soon be appearing. Then I asked: would Timaeus be interested to read it? He didn’t answer. Why not? To me, this shows a lot about Timaeus’ motives and views of courtesy. Since nullasalus and I have not had much correspondence let us try to clarify a few things: “ID, right or wrong, infers ‘intelligence’, period. Not ‘human intelligence’. Nor do I personally infer just ‘human intelligence’ when I infer it – however, I don’t believe inferring intelligence or its lack is at all scientific.” – nullasalus As a so-called ‘historical science’ (Meyer) that ‘infers causes known to produce certain effects,’ yes, human intelligence *is* inferred by IDists, in examples such as Easter Island, Mount Rushmore and the mousetrap. This is why I raised the ‘imago Dei.’ It might be helpful in case nullasalus is philosophically-oriented to involve hermeneutics and the anthropic principle here because in my view, the interpreters of ‘design/Design’ are important and their/our ‘presuppositions’ (spoken positively, not negatively) inescapably must be involved in any potential ‘science of design.’ We are the ‘intelligence’ that is ‘inferring design’ &/or ‘inferring intelligence,’ whether human or non-human. “I am no an ID proponent. I do not think ID is science.” – nullasalus This sounds like Mike Gene’s view, though last I heard he considers himself an ID proponent, at least in his own non-IDM way. Are you a general teleologic proponent nullasalus, given that you are not here to advocate for ID? I agree with nullasalus in that I do not think ID qualifies as (natural) science, but would suggest instead that a ‘science of design’ (small d) is possible (and that it already exists, outside of the IDM!). I’m not convinced one can give a ‘scientific’ explanation for ‘guidance’ or ‘plan’ or ‘purpose’ when one limits their study to looking ‘in nature.’ That is asking too much of natural scientific methodology, as it is understood by the majority of (practising) natural scientists. But there are other realms where direction, guidance, plan and purpose can be and are already studied scientifically. There is probably no need to discuss ‘extra-natural’ here however, if what ID/UD seeks is design ‘in nature.’ Again, if one hides or withholds their theology behind the scenes and allows it no place in the creation/evolution discussion, there can be little progress. So, that is why it is frustrating to see IDists play two faces when it suits them; theology is personally important to a vast majority of them, but they want to speak mainly about the so-called ‘science of ID’ as if there is no ‘bridge’ or overlap between science and theology. I’m operating under the assumption that both nullasalus and Timaeus are monotheists, as am I. Please correct me if I am wrong. What I don’t know is if they divorce science from theology completely, advocating a kind of NOMA approach. Let me remind both Timaeus and nullasalus that BioLogos Foundation has a capital ‘L’ in its name. Given the focus on ‘small id’ and ‘big ID’ introduced in this thread by Timaeus (#23), I’d say it’s an issue of respect and clarity to speak properly. ‘Small logos’ does not imply semantically what ‘big Logos’ implies right guys? nullasalus asked: “What’s the difference between ‘small id’ and ‘big ID’?” Timaeus wrote: “I was already a believer in “intelligent design” (small id) before I ever heard of Behe or Intelligent Design (big ID), and before I resumed contact with the Church.” As far as I make sense of it, the distinction between small id and big ID is that small id doesn’t claim it can be proven ‘by (natural) science;’ *all* religious persons in the Abrahamic religions accept small id as given – it is equivalent with ‘belief in Creation.’ Otoh, big ID (iow capitalised), which Timaeus links with Behe, and thus by implication with the IDM, means that ‘Intelligent Design in nature’ comes from a Divine source, which Behe and Dembski both admit is their (non-scientific) view. Saying big ID can be detected by ‘natural scientific methods’ means using faith in one’s natural science (or equating aliens with the Divine). That’s how I see it. Perhaps Timaeus would like to distinguish them differently, since he was first to raise the distinction? I agree that the distinction is meaningful. Wrt BioLogos, the main topic of this thread: Is BioLogos evasive? Of course it is! We are fully agreed on this & I didn’t suggest otherwise. BioLogos has refused to answer direct questions about divine ‘guidance’ & ‘direction’ or rather they’ve refused to follow the preferred ID-language in the discourse. They speak differently and highlight different themes than the IDM, the latter certainly being the wider tent in that it doesn’t care (on the surface) what you believe about G-d, aliens, morality, ethics, etc. Just as long as you say you can ‘detect design in nature,’ you’re ‘in.’ Welcome to the design revolution! To suggest BioLogos folk don’t believe G-d ‘orders’ and ‘guides’ the world just because they don’t openly say it is a bit like expecting one’s political opponent to use terms from one’s own platform in order to score points with voters for their own independent, and in this case, more religiously-oriented platform. BioLogos caters to USAmerican evangelical Protestant Christians and is more concerned with (at long last!) cleansing the nation of young earth creationism that opposes *all* &/or *any* types of evolutionary theories, than of anything else. BioLogos’ opposition to ID has imo been a good PR move, given that it has attracted people to ask what BioLogos is all about. It is unfortunate for BioLogos Foundation that they lost Francis Collins so early, because his book “The Language of God” has reached people (not just evangelicals) around the world (checked by experience), showing that ‘science and religion’ need not be viewed as conflicting in a person’s mind (and heart). Tarring BioLogos with the pejorative name of ‘Christian Darwinists,’ when Darwin himself wasn’t a Christian seems counter-productive to discursive progress. But hey, no doubt BioLogos has put ID backs up against the wall or at least provoked IDists to take some sort of action against them. Tit-for-tat, as game theory tells us! I’m as curious as you people to hear some clear statements about ‘Darwinism’ (as ideology) given at BioLogos, which they appear reluctant to do, for whatever reasons. But my interest is beyond biology, in fields where Darwinism is simply a different creature. It’s up to you folks to find someone at BioLogos who actually accepts the label of ‘Darwinist’ or imo you’re just setting yourself up tribally in judgment of ‘outsiders.’ “Biologos adopts the classic form of mid-20th century Darwinian theory, i.e., neo-Darwinism.” – Timaeus One would like to hope that BioLogos adopts the best biology yet available, which is sometimes neo-Darwinian, sometimes post-Darwinian, and sometimes non-Darwinian. A new ‘Name’ would seem to be required though to enact Dembski’s call for ‘Revolution!’ in natural sciences under the banner of ‘design/Design’. My answer to Timaeus’ hounding questions: 1) There do seem to be errors in Darwin’s biology (e.g. D. Allchin 2009), such that a ‘post-Darwinian’ or ‘non-Darwinian’ approach in natural-physical sciences seems necessary today. Whose ‘Name’ should be on it? I don’t know. Do you? 2) Guided, steered, directed, planned – are these not examples of Providence? I don’t know what ‘so that man was inevitable’ means. It sounds like it could impinge upon Divine freedom, which I wouldn’t accept. Here we humans are today; are we called to reverse engineer ourselves by studying nature as ‘divine technology’? 3) I believe in a ‘real, historical’ Adam and Eve, in line with Orthodox and Catholic teachings, and what appear to be the beliefs of most mainstream Protestants, along with Jews and Muslims. I’ve decided to give ‘BioLogos as a whole’ the benefit of the doubt on this, given that they appear to have back-peddled from their earlier focus on disproving the ‘real, historical’ A&E (e.g. Venema and Lamoureux). Denis Alexander’s white paper speaks of homo divinus (which he attributes to John Stott 1968), BioLogos has allowed David Opderbeck to argue for the historicity of A&E and Falk told me personally that at least one major contributor there accepts historical A&E, while he is personally agnostic on the topic. So, it now seems to me that BioLogos has not actually, in Timaeus words, ‘ruled out the existence of that couple,’ even if several BioLogos/TE/ECs lean in that direction. I don’t read the works of Ayala or Ruse at BioLogos as representative of BioLogos’ primary mission and would advise them not to include these persons in the future. Human beings exist in history and I believe G-d produced/created/made/breathed life into man (Adam). I’m not a biologist or physiologist and don’t have or know of a bio-physiological explanation or ‘proof’ for it. My advice: take that explanation for what it is. There are no credible anthropologists in the IDM, so I’m not sure why you think turning the topic toward anthropology (the science/study of Man) is your strong suit. At least BioLogos has James Kidder! ;) Btw, on this thread (https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/theistic-evolutionists-how-do-you-see-intelligent-design/), Timaeus wrote: “Michael Denton, who used to be a Discovery Fellow, but now operates on his own, can be called a small-id proponent; he certainly thinks design is evident in nature.” Is Denton not still a DI Fellow, even today? His name is still listed as Senior Fellow on DI’s website. I ‘know someone’ who was a listed on the DI website, who contacted a person in charge, and whose name was removed from the site within a couple of days. Why has Denton’s name remained so long if he is now independent from the DI? Could someone at UD find out Denton’s status wrt DI? Perhaps the Wheaton conference in a couple of weeks will shed some light on the relationship between DI people and BioLogos people, since both will be in attendance, faced-off, so to speak in respective presentation sections. Will they debate lacking civility or find common ground in science, philosophy &/or religious terms? You are welcome for the information, Timaeus. Cheers, Gr. “The feeling remains that God is on the journey, too.” – Teresa of Avila “In many areas of understanding, none so much as in our understanding of God, we bump up against a simplicity so profound that we must assign complexities to it to comprehend it at all. It is mindful of how we paste decals to a sliding glass door to keep from bumping our nose against it.” – Robert Brault “Chance is perhaps the pseudonym of God when he did not want to sign.” – Anatole France “I simply haven’t the nerve to imagine a being, a force, a cause which keeps the planets revolving in their orbits, and then suddenly stops in order to give me a bicycle [bacterial flagellum] with three speeds.” – Quentin CrispGregory
March 9, 2012
March
03
Mar
9
09
2012
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply