Congratulations to New BioLogos President

_{johnnyb
January 29, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

I just wanted to extend my congratulations to Deborah Haarsma, the new president of BioLogos! I hope that in the coming years, whether BioLogos embraces Intelligent Design or not, they can at least come to understand better the positions we hold.

I have not read Dr. Haarsma’s book on creation/evolution/intelligent design, but I would be interested to hear from people who have.

Anyway, many congratulations, and I hope the BioLogos Foundation’s search for truth is effective and fruitful.

Comments

I guess Gregory's willingness to serve as a mediator was a limited time offer. And it looks like I wasted 10 bucks on Bejan's book. Gregory won't be around to discuss it.Mung_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Gregory, for the umpteenth time, has referred to the time he spent part of a summer (actually, it was only something like 8 days) at the Discovery Institute; generally his references serve the purpose of mild boastfulness -- e.g., he is an expert on ID because he took the program. Here the reference supports great boastfulness -- he "outproduced" (whatever that means) "the entire IDM" (Gregory was never a man for understatement), and "other interested persons" saw the "evidence" for this. Yet, when asked to describe his activities at the DI summer course, Gregory has repeatedly refused to do so. In other words, he refuses to give us the information we need to evaluate the claims of his superior training and insights regarding ID. I'm sure many here are starting to wonder why Gregory wants us to accept the claims, but will not provide any substantiation for the claims. For example, Gregory could get permission from some of the students he talked to at Discovery, to quote or paraphrase their judgments of his brilliance. Then we could, if we wished, check his claims by speaking with the people whose words he was relaying. He could also let us know which teachers in the program thought he outstripped all the other students in understanding. We could, then, write to those teachers and ask them if Gregory was in fact so excellent. Of course, these are not the only reasons why Gregory's account would be useful. Anyone thinking of taking the summer program would like to have an account from someone who has gone there before. I already stressed the value of this in earlier posts. But in the context of Gregory's current boasting, an account becomes more than useful; it becomes imperative. Otherwise we must regard Gregory's account of his own performance as partisan and unreliable. Finally, Gregory must be joking when he implies that he has been making a big sacrifice of time and credibility in speaking to the lowly people at Uncommon Descent. It is not as if anyone asked for his help here. But his "excuse" for leaving does not make sense even in his own terms. If it was damaging his credibility with academia to talk to us rubes here, why has he been doing it all along? Why hasn't he shunned the place? And if the Chairs and Deans at his Eastern European teacher's college haven't indicated displeasure at his activities here for the past two years, why would anyone at his new institution (presuming he is moving) do so? In any case, if Gregory has got a promotion, I offer him my congratulations. But as far as ID goes, it won't make any difference. ID proponents argue mainly about two things: natural science and theology. Gregory has no qualifications to comment on either, so whatever his new job is, it won't be a "game changer" as far as his authority in ID discussions goes.Timaeus_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

As for ‘burning out,’ there is not much time remaining. I have enough energy to out-produce the entire IDM! This was evidenced at the DI summer program in discussion with other genuinely interested persons, who had not yet become Big-ID ideologues. Something big has happened in the past few days; a game-changer, so to speak. I won a scholar competition that will change my role and position in these discussions over the next two years. As a result, I must soon depart from Uncommon Descent, as educated dialogue here does not seem to help the situation and I am not willing to compromise my academic credibility by giving this site (and by implication, Big-ID theory) my time and attention. This is so even if I think many of you (from e-contact) are perhaps decent people aside from your obvious embrace of the ideology of Big-IDism. So perhaps you can now understand, StephenB, that people do in fact take me seriously (especially students!), even actual high-level scholars and international colleagues. I take this honour as a sign of being much better balanced that the average uneducated American Big-IDist/neo-creationist. In anticipation of my near-departure, I highly recommend for you to read Max Weber’s “Science as a Vocation,” which can be found hereGregory_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Gregory announced (36 above) that he would not be responding to my post on this thread. Interestingly, this resolve has not stopped him from taking a number of personal swipes at me on this thread (43 above). It does not seem to have occurred to Gregory that substantive discussion of an argument is more useful to readers than sniping and digging. It also does not seem to register on him -- though he has been told scores of times over the past few years here -- that he would be more respected by everyone here if he (a) responded to counterarguments instead of ducking them; and (b) refrained from ad hominem remarks. So he seems to be shooting himself in the foot; he wishes more respect from everyone here, yet continues in the behavior which everyone has told him earns their disrespect. This is irrational. But someone with a Ph.D. is supposed to be rational. Something doesn't figure. I won't respond to Gregory's edgy tone in kind. I will simply make some factual corrections to his swipes at me. I never said that I was conducting scholarship here on UD. I have presented certain results of scholarship (my own, and others') here, where the subjects of discussion have warranted it; but original scholarship I present in other venues. What I present here are intelligent layman's arguments relevant to what columnists and commenters have written. If these arguments happen to be informed by over 30 years of scholarship, I cannot help that. Gregory may be surprised to know that I once took a course in computer programming. More important, however, is that I know the condition of the very existence of computer programs; they cannot arise out of chance, but require intelligent agency. And Bill Gates himself once said that DNA is more complex than any software ever produced. Gregory has not yet drawn the inference for the question of design in nature; I drew it long ago. I therefore would not trade my older education, which taught me how to reason, for any of the alleged advantages Gregory had from growing up in a generation that had computers in high school (at the expense of grammar, compositional skill, Latin, reading comprehension and many other things that modern high schools have scrapped). Regarding Gregory's p.p.p.s. to StephenB, I employ my "misdirection filter" and translate it as: "I'm not going to reply to your argument from the passage from Humani Generis, because Humani Generis blows away my argument about official Catholic teaching on evolution, and any attention I draw to the document will reveal that, no matter how cleverly I try to finesse the words to make them say something that they don't; so it's best that I keep the reader's mind off Humani Generis altogether." Of course, Gregory got himself into this problem, by posturing as if he knows something about the Catholic position on evolution, when in fact he is not Catholic and has no training in Catholic theology. Why he can't just defer to StephenB's superior knowledge of the tradition is anyone's guess.Timaeus_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

StephenB, If I provided you with incontrovertible evidence that you (and anyone else reading this) could personally “follow where it leads,” but that in fact challenges your position, would you be willing to publically admit it when you saw it or not? Yes or No? In the intervening days since last contact, I’ve found clear and present evidence. Not highly technical, but readable to non-scholars and scholars equally. It should be obvious to anyone who cares to take just a few minutes of their time to read it. And it gets right at the heart of your unwillingness to admit Big-ID/small-id waffling is even happening. Would you be willing to face up to the evidence, StephenB? In any case, I see you still have no hesitation to give false testimony by trying to put words into my mouth (“I despise Timaeus” – StephenB), just like your (culture-war) ‘comrade’ Timaeus’ bad communication habits. Such is what one has to face when getting ‘in the trenches’ with Big-IDists like you guys. Please realise that I see through your ‘tar and feather’ tactics and it doesn’t faze me. In this thread, johnnyb offered congratulations to Deborah Haarsma and Jeffrey Schloss. That’s a positive non-culture-warring move, for which I applaud him. I have a feeling he and I would get along just fine in person, not just internet chatter. He is also welcome to reach me via my real-life contact, from following links on my name. I would also offer my congratulations to Deb and Jeff. The new directions that BioLogos will push (with renewed Templeton grant) might be interesting, e.g. the recent Venema series offering an Intro to Evolution. StephenB, nullasalus, vjtorley and Timaeus only sheepishly if at all support educating YEC’s out of their YECism, as BioLogos bravely does. No doubt, BioLogos has picked a worthy battle, one which Big-ID on the contrary exploits to its own financial gains and consequent reputation losses. Nevertheless, I disagree strongly with both Deb and Jeff’s approaches to evolution and evolutionism. It may be provocative what develops from these disagreements. In #2 above, I made a simple prediction: BioLogos will not (read: in the foreseeable future) embrace (Big-ID) Intelligent Design theory. This was in response to johnnyb’s congratulation to BioLogos’ new leaders, “whether BioLogos embraces Intelligent Design [theory] or not.” I stand by that claim and don’t think anyone here at UD would hypothesise otherwise. If they would care to offer a way that “BioLogos will embrace Intelligent Design,” which I doubt they will, could please share it here? So far, Big-IDists have got nothing constructive to offer. One hyper-IDist at BioLogos even tried to humorously claim him-self an ‘intelligent design theistic evolutionist.’ But that obvious mask was soon dropped for the reality of his anti-TE/EC position. He has and continues to mock and condescend with his supposed ID-wisdom towards (Open Theism and) BioLogos for its possibly primitive evangelical theology, while at the same time not defending Big-ID for its ‘science-only’ facade. These things make the sociological fact of (pseudo- and quasi-) IDists and IDism so curious to observe! You folks may or may not be seeking (a) mediator(s) in your American culture-war stand-off. You may or may not think you need one, as self-righteously individualist a culture in which you live in the USA. The truth is that some people on this Earth don’t think they need *any* help or correction, even when the evidence and need stares them straight in the face. My question thus is: if you discover a competent mediator (i.e. someone who isn’t a professed IDist, TEist, or ECist), would be willing with their help to negotiate or adjust your meaning of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ (small-id/Big-ID) theory/paradigm if reality proves that BioLogos will not accept Big-ID theory based on good reasons? As for StephenB’s question whether or not “small id excludes design arguments that do NOT assume design, as is the case with Aquinas and Paley.” The answer can only be found if StephenB will ever stop fronting the current Big-ID ‘objectivistic’ and/or ‘neutralistic’ position that Big-ID is a natural science-only theory. Even in this thread he spews such ludicrous ideas. Once he stops that, we can possibly address his reflexive question properly. Aquinas and Paley were obviously not ‘natural scientists’ as the term is generally understood now and they cannot be mis-appropriated as Big-IDists as the IDM has already done with A.R. Wallace. But this message simply and clearly aims to know if StephenB will “follow the evidence where it leads” or not. Is StephenB ready to face ‘incontrovertible evidence’ against his position? It’s a simple as that. Gregory p.s. What most baffles me and even makes me chuckle about in this thread is that it appears ‘Timaeus’ seems to actually think he is personally (anonymously) doing “scholarship in theology” at UD His generation (as he told us here at UD when he responded to Steve Fuller; he is born in 1956) didn’t grow up with computers and the internet, didn’t program at a young age like mine and many at UD did, and thus may find it hard to distinguish between blogs, on-line forums, academic venues and professional journals, etc. We may excuse him for his confusion. But what really must be a far stretch of the imagination for most reading this is that Timaeus actually seems to think that UD is a venue for serious theologians to publish themselves (even their most significant ‘public’ works) and that this is what he is doing here! I can say honestly, that I don’t consider UD as such a site, even if Timaeus desires to see this venue that way and expects others to agree with him. Unless he has no other venues to be published, surely Timaeus is merely teasing us :P p.p.s. I had read the passage from Humani Generis before you cited it, StephenB. Imo, it does not credit your unsupported Big-IDist ideology. So it wasn’t worth addressing here. I answered your question above and showed how your ‘trendy’ accusation was mudslinging bunk. Perhaps you will display the basic human dignity to understand this and treat me more fairly in future communication.Gregory_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, @41 I am not sure that UD has a full-time moderator these days. It seems that the thread’s author is now the one who is expected to play that role. With great sadness, VJT found it necessary to cut off all communication with Gregory. On several other occasions, kairosfocus has held the line on civilized behavior and deleted comments from writers who refused to stay on topic. Following their lead, other authors could delete his recklessly insulting comments, press him to answer questions, and prompt him to disclose his own views. I don’t think you should have to withdraw from the discussion in order to make that happen. While Gregory’s behavior has always eccentric, it becomes downright bizarre when he interacts with you. I know that it has been going on for a long time, but I can find no rhyme or reason for it. In a way, it is a tribute to your standing as an ID paragon, since he sends his most passionate and contempt-filled ID rants in your direction. At this point, though, I don’t think anyone takes him seriously. How many times can he write, “I despise Timaeus,” or “small id is good; Big ID is bad, or “Steve Fuller and I are the two smartest people in the world” without becoming a caricature of himself. I don’t think you will have to freeze him out. As this generation’s “Johnny-one-note,” he will burn himself out.StephenB_{February 5, 2013
February
02
Feb
5
05
2013
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Thanks for your answer in 40, and for your good response to Gregory in 38. It appears that Gregory has exited the discussion, both under this column and under the other one where these issues are currently being discussed. Let's review what happened, and think about what Gregory's exit means. Gregory made charges that you did not correctly understand the Catholic position on evolution, and made assertions of his own about that position. You conceded to him certain points, but on certain other points, you responded with authoritative statements from the Vatican. He has refused to engage with those statements, and instead has responded with the opinions of dissident Catholics who have no teaching authority. I am not Catholic, but I have immense respect for the Catholic Church. And if I were Catholic, I would be a conservative one, not a liberal one. Humani Generis would for me outweigh the opinions of liberal bloggers or liberal university professors. I think Gregory would like the Catholic teaching on evolution to be other than it is. To be sure, Catholicism is more evolution-friendly than evangelical Protestantism has been; but it still doesn't go as far as Gregory would like it to go. Well, fine. Gregory can criticize the Roman Church if he wishes, and urge it to change. What he doesn't have the right to do is misrepresent Rome's teaching in order to defend his own views on evolution. And that's what he often does. I not know why Gregory will not yield to the evidence of documents. I do not know what motivates him, what his agenda is, where he would like Christianity to go. What I do know is that, when it comes to questions of religious doctrine and religious history, he argues unfairly and in an academically unacceptable manner. I've asked Gregory to lay his cards on the table, explain to us his views on God, evolution, the true form of Christianity, etc. If we knew where he was coming from, we could have a much more constructive dialogue with him. We might be able to find points of agreement. But all we know of Gregory's thought is what views of God, evolution, and Christianity that he *dislikes*. We know what he will aggressively denounce. We know what he negates; we have no idea what he posits. The question is why Gregory will not offer any positive statements. Of course, if Gregory offered positive statements, he would then be in the same position as the rest of us. Just as our expressed views, precisely because they are not hidden, but open, can be criticized by Gregory, so if his views were open, not hidden, they could be criticized by us. He would then potentially be on the defensive, rather than on the offensive. And perhaps he does not want to open up himself in that way. Whatever his reasons, he has given us nothing to discuss. I no longer wish to spend time refuting his charges of low motivations, dishonesty, political scheming, cowardice, scientism, etc. If he is not going to set forth his own views, I don't really wish to converse with him any longer. I can't tell others here what to do, but one strategy that might reduce the number of aggressive attacks on all of us would be not to respond to Gregory again until he sets forth doctrines of his own. *Not* objections to Discovery or ID or creationism etc., but his own doctrines. If we all simply went silent until he set forth his own position, answering along the way the many questions he has left unanswered about what he believes, he would have to either articulate his position -- which would be useful to all -- or give up posting here out of boredom, when no one replied. This is my suggestion. I of course have no way of enforcing it, and no desire to enforce it. But it might improve matters. The status quo -- with Gregory dropping in here every few weeks and berating and insulting people, and then leaving when challenged to defend his own views -- is not acceptable. If anyone has another suggestion for how to talk more constructively with Gregory, I'm all ears.Timaeus_{February 5, 2013
February
02
Feb
5
05
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @37, I am at a loss to explain why Gregory would characterize your comments @25 as an unprovoked attack. Perhaps he didn't realize that I had praised you @23 for practicing the virtue of meekness in the face of his unwarranted attacks on your character and that you were simply responding to my compliment. Apparently, he is not aware of the fact that it was I and not you that broached the subject.StephenB_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

Optimus @24, thank you for the kind words.StephenB_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Gregory.
You don’t yet understand the language of Big-ID vs. small-id and the difference adopting it makes possible. If you did, you wouldn’t ask such a question about ‘admiring Creation’s beauty.’ small-id advocates (who mostly don’t call themselves that!) think “God designed a bird’s wings” and flowers and people; they believe in (and thus just as readily admire the beauty of) Creation! The felt need you have to pigeon-hole ‘biological design’ is to commit yourself to the ideology of scientism, rather than to openly embrace science, philosophy and theology/worldview in a collaborative dialogue. This resistance to widening the conversation from natural-science alone to science, philosophy and theology/worldview stops our conversation from moving forward.
You may recall that I asked you on another occasion to tell me, based on your statement that small id “assumes” design, if that meant that small id excludes design arguments that do NOT assume design, as is the case with Aquinas and Paley. I assume that you didn’t address the question because you have not given the matter any thought. Well, it’s time to think about it. If only the assumption of design counts as “small id,” then it should be evident that small ID cannot appreciate the beauty of design patterns that, by definition, are merely being assumed and have not been observed (detected). Big ID, on the other hand, does not take the existence of design patterns on faith; it detects those patterns and, through that detection, recognizes the beautiful proportions inherent in them. One cannot appreciate beauty and its proportions if both are simply taken on faith. If small id, therefore, excludes design detection through inference, then it also excludes the possibility of appreciating beauty, which is inseparable from design detection. You can’t appreciate a beautiful woman’s face by simply accepting as an article of faith that the pleasing proportions are there; you must be able to apprehend (detect) them through observation. You cannot appreciate the beauty of Mozart by simply believing that his composition was designed, you must hear the design of that composition played out. Is this not clear to you? So, the question is, how can small id appreciate the beauty of a design that cannot be apprehended in the design patterns? Or is it the case that small id DOES include design arguments that begin with observation, in which case, small ID collapses into Big ID and your distinctions become meaningless. So, my challenge persists. Define "small id," including at least some of the elements and problems that I have indicated.
Most Big-ID advocates (the leaders of the DI anyway) think that ‘Design’ (by an unnameable ‘Intelligence’) can be ‘natural scientifically’ proven (or ‘inferred’). Again, it’s the claim to ‘natural scientificity’ here that is the stumbling block. Big-ID is an attempted ‘natural scientific’ theory of origins (life, biological information, even sometimes of human beings), aimed at rivalling or even eventually over-coming ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution’ as a theory of ‘natural history.’ Surely we do agree on that, even if you simply read this ‘definition’ of Big-ID theory with charity?
I think we can agree on that.
People of faith, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Bahai’s, et al. have no need to try to ‘natural scientifically prove’ the existence of a Creator they already accept on faith. Why is this so hard for disenchanted theists who are attracted to Big-ID theory and movement to understand?
Reasonable people want to know that their faith commitment is not just a flying shot in the dark. That is why Romans 1:20 tells us that we can infer God’s existence through the evidence of his handiwork. It makes no sense to simply believe something that we can know beyond a reasonable doubt. If we know that God exists, then we can believe in his revelation with the confidence that our faith commitment is grounded in reason. Muslims and Bahai’s simply take their religion on faith, without putting it to the test of reason. Christians believe because reason has provided the intellectual preparation for a higher faith in God’s word. Faith should be permitted to illuminate reason only after faith has passed the test of reason.
Part of the reason, it seems, is that ‘eastern’ thinking is more holistic and integral, while ‘western’ thinking is more atomistic and fragmented, and the discourse at UD is mainly among ‘westerners.’ The eastern Abrahamic believers I’ve spoken with don’t usually see such a conflict between science and religion or science and theology/worldview. They see symbiosis or (potential) harmony amongst the over-lapping spheres.
I don’t know of anyone at UD who disagrees with the notion of over-lapping spheres. I have been preaching that sermon for about ten paragraphs now. Why the strawman?
Most Big-ID advocates (the leaders of the DI anyway) think that ‘Design’ (by an unnameable ‘Intelligence’) can be ‘natural scientifically’ proven (or ‘inferred’). Again, it’s the claim to ‘natural scientificity’ here that is the stumbling block. Big-ID is an attempted ‘natural scientific’ theory of origins (life, biological information, even sometimes of human beings), aimed at rivalling or even eventually over-coming ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution’ as a theory of ‘natural history.’ Surely we do agree on that, even if you simply read this ‘definition’ of Big-ID theory with charity?
Sure, I can accept that description of “Big ID” as a working or operative definition. I am very easy to get along with. Now we must evaluate your comments about “Catholicism.” I realize that that you don’t like that word, so I will try not to offend your sensibilities any more than is necessary. My purpose for citing the passages in Humani Generis was to provide a solid theological footing for understanding the Church’s teaching on origins and evolution. If you read the two paragraphs I cited, you will find nothing in that document that discourages, much less forbids, the science of detecting design patterns in nature (what you call “Big ID”). Note that the Catholic Church is very open-minded about these things. Being pro-science, it encourages research from just about every perspective that you can imagine. Very few approaches are prohibited. That is why one should pay close attention when the Church actually does take a negative stand and state explicitly that a certain philosophical or scientific world view violates the spirit of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. What, then, are some of the few things that a Catholic must avoid if he is to remain faithful to the letter and spirit of magisterial teachings? I will explain the point and then provide the portion of the document [in brackets] that confirms it: First, a Catholic cannot, without good reason, dogmatically assert that "the" theory of evolution is true, that is, he must seriously entertain the possibility that he could be wrong, weighing both sides of the argument with serious deliberation, at least until all the evidence is in and the verdict is overwhelmingly positive. [“However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure…”] [Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question]. Second, a Catholic must rule out any world view that posits the emergence of mind from matter or the notion that an immaterial soul, of which the immaterial mind is a faculty, was the product of naturalistic evolution. The soul is understood to be a spiritual substance, so matter cannot bring it into being. Obviously, naturalistic or materialistic evolution would not make the cut. [“for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God”]. Third, a Catholic must rule out “polygenism,” the theory that the human race has descended from two or more ancestral types. [“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.”] Interestingly, most of the “Catholic” journalists you cited ignore the aforementioned points. They are politically and legally free to do so, of course, but they do so solely on their own authority. They do not speak for the Church. Indeed, Father Coyne, former head of the Vatican observatory, and one of your sources, was removed from his post, probably because of his belligerence in the teeth of official church teachings. Now I do think it is fair to point out that, informally and unofficially, at least two popes have discouraged the Creation Science paradigm (what you and I call “Creationism”) and have argued that it is unscientific. I think that their position is eminently reasonable, but I hasten to add that informal comments by a pope, though they deserve to be taken seriously, are not binding for Catholics and do not carry the same weight as an encyclical, which is binding. I think it is fair to say that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both advocates of common descent and a guided evolutionary process, putting them at odds with Theistic Darwinists, who propose unguided evolution in the name of God, and Creation Scientists (Creationists), who ignore sound Biblical hermeneutics and embrace a "literalist" (as opposed to "literal")reading of Genesis. It is also true that many of the common teachings of the Catholic Church (a second level that is encouraged and recommended but not binding) have been influenced by Augustine and Aquinas, just as they have been influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Accordingly, some would like to claim that ID’s approach to scientific detection is incompatible with Aquinas’ philosophy of nature. Among those who promote this view, we can include Ed Feser, Ed Oakes, Thomas Heller, and Francis Beckwith. At UD, we take note of that. However, what these authors will not tell you is that many other Thomistic philosophers think that ID and St.Thomas are eminently compatible. So, I don’t know why I should give any more weight to your anti-ID thomists than you give to my pro-ID Thomists. Indeed, the fact that the anti-ID Thomists refuse to mention the pro-ID Thomists suggests a compromised level of scholarship on their part. Only agenda-driven ideologues do not want to hear the other side of an argument, and only agenda-driven ideologues withhold critical information. I am, therefore, less than congenial with agenda-driven Catholic ideologues when they attack ID in the name of Catholicism and Thomism, even though both their Church and their master would disapprove of their actions.StephenB_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB: I hope that you or someone else can tell me why my plea (#25 above) to Gregory to set aside wrangling about vocabulary, motivations, and cultural politics and offer us his views on the subjects of nature and God and design detection and Christianity constitutes an "unprovoked attack" (#36 above) upon Gregory. Be that as it may, I would like to make another remark, which Gregory will doubtless interpret as an "unprovoked attack" but which is only a factual observation, which Gregory can choose to explain, or leave unexplained, as he wishes. I wrote above (#21): "I predict that Gregory will not engage with you at all on the passages you have quoted from Humani Generis." Gregory's response to you in #36 does not address even a single line of the Catholic document. He refutes your account of Catholic thought by linking to the articles of two Catholic journalist/bloggers who give their secondhand account of the views of various Catholic thinkers. Not one of the journalists or bloggers or Catholic thinkers cited has the authority to speak for the Catholic Church on the meaning of Humani Generis. Basically, Gregory has thrown up a smattering of opinion of individual, freelancing Catholics (bloggers, journalists, biologists, philosophy professors, retired Vatican astronomers), as if such a mishmash is equal in authority to a document promulgated by the Holy See. I cannot grasp a conception of scholarship that puts the opinions of journalists and bloggers and other unlicensed teachers ahead of official documents of the Church whose views are being debated. Is it an "unprovoked attack" to note that this is not the way that scholarship in theology is done, and to ask Gregory why he proceeds in this manner?Timaeus_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

@StephenB #19: “You ought to read “The Evidential Power of Beauty,” by Fr. Thomas Dubay, a pro-ID catholic priest (Thomist).” – StephenB Thanks for the referral. Can you also link us to published writing by Fr. Thomas Dubay that is ‘pro-ID’? Thanks in advance. “Any Catholic who opposes “Big ID” in the name of Catholicism understands neither ID nor Catholicism.” - StephenB No, Catholics are generally not ‘pro-Big-ID.’ They are pro-small-id (see more below). They don’t think one can ‘natural scientifically’ prove (or weaker: ‘infer’) the existence of a Big-IA Intelligent Agent, by which they and other Christians name ‘God.’ That is one of the two main differences between small-id and Big-ID: scientificity and movement. small-id and anti-Big-ID are not ‘movements,’ they are mainstream views; they are what most people, meaning Abrahamic religious persons, believe. [And personally, StephenB, I don’t usually use the term ‘Catholicism.’] “Who is more likely to admire the beauty of creation? Will it be a Big ID advocate, who thinks that God designed a bird’s wings, or an evolutionary creationist, who thinks that biological design is an illusion?” – StephenB You don’t yet understand the language of Big-ID vs. small-id and the difference adopting it makes possible. If you did, you wouldn’t ask such a question about ‘admiring Creation’s beauty.’ small-id advocates (who mostly don’t call themselves that!) think “God designed a bird’s wings” and flowers and people; they believe in (and thus just as readily admire the beauty of) Creation! The felt need you have to pigeon-hole ‘biological design’ is to commit yourself to the ideology of scientism, rather than to openly embrace science, philosophy and theology/worldview in a collaborative dialogue. This resistance to widening the conversation from natural-science alone to science, philosophy and theology/worldview stops our conversation from moving forward. Most Big-ID advocates (the leaders of the DI anyway) think that ‘Design’ (by an unnameable ‘Intelligence’) can be ‘natural scientifically’ proven (or ‘inferred’). Again, it’s the claim to ‘natural scientificity’ here that is the stumbling block. Big-ID is an attempted ‘natural scientific’ theory of origins (life, biological information, even sometimes of human beings), aimed at rivalling or even eventually over-coming ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution’ as a theory of ‘natural history.’ Surely we do agree on that, even if you simply read this 'definition' of Big-ID theory with charity? People of faith, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Bahai’s, et al. have no need to try to ‘natural scientifically prove’ the existence of a Creator they already accept on faith. Why is this so hard for disenchanted theists who are attracted to Big-ID theory and movement to understand? Part of the reason, it seems, is that ‘eastern’ thinking is more holistic and integral, while ‘western’ thinking is more atomistic and fragmented, and the discourse at UD is mainly among ‘westerners.’ The eastern Abrahamic believers I’ve spoken with don’t usually see such a conflict between science and religion or science and theology/worldview. They see symbiosis or (potential) harmony amongst the over-lapping spheres. “The official teaching of the Catholic Church fits in with Big ID, but it doesn’t fit in with your trendy “Catholic” friends at BioLogos.” – StephenB Actually StephenB, I believe the first part of your statement is wrong and the second part is needless mudslinging. Big-ID theory is trying to test God’s divine action (without, wink, nudge, explicitly calling it “God’s divine action”); it is claiming a ‘natural scientific’ proof ‘(inference’) for God’s works (‘Design in Nature’). It is claiming ‘Design in Nature’ *is* real and natural science can tell us how or where or when (or even more explanitarily weak, simply that) it became INSTANTIATED (except when it usually scientifically fails to do these things). Big-IDists are sometimes trying to make their theory ‘fit in’ with the official teachings of the Catholic Church, but the vice versa scenario (of fitting the Catholic Church in with Big-ID) is not a coherent Catholic thought. Two examples: Here and and Here I’m neither a BioLogosian nor an ‘evolutionary creationist.’ My supposed “trendy ‘Catholic’ friends at BioLogos" is a myth of your own making. Please stop with this false imagination. If you’d actually read my writings, some of which you can find by clicking on my name, you’d realise that already. I’m charting an alternative route, StephenB, just as critical of ‘theistic evolutionism/evolutionary creationism’ as I am of Big-IDism, ideologies as each of them are. And as I’ve said many times here before, as an Abrahamic believer, I embrace, what for social-cultural-political reasons only in the dialogue here is now called (at least by me, but demonstrated in the writings of others also) ‘small-id’ or lower case id (Gingerich), the common confession that God created the universe. But please don’t ask me to give you a ‘natural scientific proof’ or ‘natural scientific inference’ of that. p.s. unprovoked attacks by 'Timaeus' are not welcome and are becoming more regular, since the Big-ID vs. small-id flip-flopping he demonstrated. I didn't reference his name in this thread or comment on his words, but yet he jumped at me with obviously more free time on his hands than I have, demanding answers. I won't be responding to his post in this thread.Gregory_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

Mung: "But for God to break one of His natural laws it would require that God be subject to the natural laws that he created to govern nature. But God is not a natural thing and cannot be subject to natural law. I’m sure you agree, lol." Here you are trying to be too clever, and reading more into Giberson's position than what he is saying. (I agree Giberson is incompetent in the area, but I want to be fair to him.) First of all, if God can break his own natural laws, he is *not* subject to them. Second, Giberson is not denying that God could break one of his own laws if he wanted to. He is saying that God generally does not do so, and generally shouldn't do so. And he is saying that, because God doesn't do so, we can be sure that life evolved from molecules to man without "interventions." Notice how clever this is. The TE doesn't have to prove that molecules are *capable* of becoming man, by showing other scientists the pathway by which this might happen, with detailed description of mechanisms. He simply has to declare that God doesn't break his own laws, because God is a reasonable sort of fellow who doesn't contradict himself -- and then naturalistic theistic evolution follows inevitably. Very neat. The problem is that this "proof" of naturalistic evolution is (a) theological, not scientific; and (b) based on a non-Biblical theology.Timaeus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Karl Giberson:
Who is right - Collins or Behe? And how do we decide? Almost all the controversies about science within the evangelical world - and elsewhere - come down to this sort of situation - multiple experts, often impressively credentialed, but with opposing views. Behe and Collins both claim to speak for science. I want to suggest that, despite the apparent symmetry of the two sides in this case, that Collins should clearly be preferred over Behe. Collins promotes scientific ideas that are shared by tens of thousand of other credentialed scientists.
Behe, otoh, is a crank.
The pages of leading science magazines discuss those ideas.
They never discuss anything by Behe. He's a crank.
Scientific meetings put those ideas on their programs.
Behe, that crank, can't even get an invite.
Grants are awarded to study those ideas.
Any grant awarded to Behe is a clear case of government malfeasance.
Biotechnology companies research new products based on those ideas.
Research based on the idea that "it just happened, that's all" is incredibly productive.
Some pharmaceutical companies even have products for sale based on those ideas.
Research based on the idea that "it just happened, that's all" is incredibly profitable.
In contrast, Behe's ideas are shared by a tiny number of scientists, and most of them are less credentialed than he is.
Behe's credentials are a magnet for other cranks.
Collins's group of colleagues is hundreds, perhaps thousand of times larger than Behe's.
That explains the intellectual black hole.
The ideas about intelligent design promoted by Behe are almost nonexistent in the scientific literature.
Real scientists cannot be bothered to publish results refuting the claims of a crank like Behe.
Some of the ideas, in fact, have never been written up and submitted to a science journal.
Yawn.
They appear only in his popular books.
Therefore, they are not worth publishing.
Behe's ideas are not discussed at scientific meetings...
Any meeting which discusses his ideas is not a scientific meeting.
They are published primarily in books that are not peer reviewed...
Unlike Charles Darwin. Even so, any peer of Behe can pick up his books and review them. I imagine it's been done.
No grants are being rewarded to study these ideas...
Probably a lie. If not, I'll fund a (modest) grant.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Alternatively, I argue that God, incapable of non-existence, is the most 'natural' being that exists. God, who has His existence apart from any "natural law" other than the "natural law" that God must exist, cannot logically establish laws which govern His own existence. The alternative is that God can establish laws that govern His actions. Given that God is also pure Act, this again is not possible. Not to mention the problem that "God either cannot or chooses not to violate natural laws" creates for the historical narrative of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ. I'm guessing this is why we don't see all that many TE's here.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Timaeus:
The word “intervention” for him means an occasion when God breaks his own natural laws.
But for God to break one of His natural laws it would require that God be subject to the natural laws that he created to govern nature. But God is not a natural thing and cannot be subject to natural law. I'm sure you agree, lol. I think that Young Earth Creationism is misguided due to a faulty hermeneutic. I think that Theistic Evolution is just incoherent.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Mung: First of all, I agree with you that Giberson's thought on religion and science is extremely inadequate. You can't say enough negative things about Giberson to please me. However, his point in the statement you quoted is not really objectionable, once you grasp what he means by "intervention." The word "intervention" for him means an occasion when God breaks his own natural laws. For example, you fall off a cliff, and are sure to die, but then an angel sent by God causes you float to the ground, in defiance of the law of gravity. That is what Giberson means by "intervention." And he's dead against interventions, not only because he sees them as a danger to scientific explanations of things -- which presume there are regularities, laws, etc., but also for theological reasons. He shares the Enlightenment prejudice that a God who works through natural laws is superior to a God who manipulates matter directly, in an ad hoc manner. Most TEs have the same prejudice. So an "intervening" God is not only a threat to science, but represents "bad theology" in his view. So he would say that God works *through* natural laws -- keeps planets in orbit and plants growing and animals reproducing and so on by sustaining the regular operations of nature. And he sees this as the Christian teaching, that God is active by "powering" nature, not by tampering with it. Now, to be fair to Giberson, Newton and Boyle also believed that God generally acted through natural causes, e.g., in the order of the solar system, and when they did natural science they did not posit angels moving the planets etc. They looked for laws. What separates Newton and Boyle from Giberson and many other modern TEs is that Newton and Boyle did not think that the "no-intervention" notion applied when it came to explaining *origins*. They took it for granted that in order for God to create the universe, life, etc., he had to work above and beyond natural laws -- indeed, natural laws were the result of his creative activity, not some binding set of rules through which he was bound to act. Modern science, breaking with Boyle and Newton, has ventured to explain not only the operations but also the origins of everything in the universe via natural laws, without any reference to "interventions" -- i.e., special divine actions. Most TEs are onside with this. Very few TEs will openly affirm (whatever some may privately suspect) that God used a miracle to create the first cell, or to give some hominid a truly human soul. They are committed -- almost all of them, when speaking publically -- to a wholly naturalistic account of origins. Is this Biblical? No. In the Bible God is dynamic and personally active. But most TEs also accept the Enlightenment project of Biblical criticism, which allows them to take large portions of the Bible with a grain of salt. So the passages which clearly depict a hands-on God in the process of creating the world, they write off as mere poetry, or the confusion of primitive minds which had not yet grasped science, or the like. They will thus cherry-pick passages, pointing out, for example, that in the Red Sea episode, God sends a wind to part the waters ("See, God works through natural laws -- wind is a natural phenomenon!"), while completely ignoring that the way the wind *works* in the story is downright *un*natural, and completely ignoring many other things in the same Exodus story, such as the rods turning into snakes, manna from heaven, etc., where the Biblical narrative clearly indicates that the power of God is interrupting the normal course of nature. TEs intensely dislike the idea of God acting in the natural world as a human being might act, exerting his personal will here and there in particular situations. If the Bible had not yet been written, and a committee of TEs were put in charge of writing it, all the miraculous language, except the Resurrection, and maybe some of the healings, would be expunged. Everything would be explained as remarkable coincidences (the result of "randomness" which can create anything, according to BioLogos), coincidences which the pious characters in the stories and the narrators *ascribe* to God. So miracles would become: "Gee, if you hadn't happened along with a wagon full of food and water at just the time you did, I would have died of hunger and thirst in the desert; it must be the hand of God," instead of "And I was dying of thirst in the desert, and behold, from the sky which had been clear a moment before, water and food rained down, because God commanded the heavens to send down food to save me." "Intervention" is the four-letter word of TE theology. Well, actually, it is the *other* four-letter word, the main one being "ID."Timaeus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Karl Giberson:
Europe was gradually becoming scientific and developing a worldview that included a belief in science; a part of this belief was an intuition that the world ran according to natural laws rather than the constant intervention of God.
How on earth do 'natural laws' obviate the need for the constant intervention of God?Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

I enjoyed it, it's too bad we didn't have more time.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Yeah I remember that. I think we were in the same corner. That was a blast:-)Optimus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

I get the feeling that Gregory did in fact attend a DI summer seminar but that it did not turn out well. My guess is that he has an agenda, his own vision for ID, and is still somewhat upset that the DI didn't adopt it. How's that for motive mongering?Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Optimus:
Hey I remember you saying that you went to that ‘Analytic Philosophy Club’ meeting at Lakehills. Were you at the table in the middle? I was the guy with the hat
I was actually sitting a bit back from the table, at one of the corners, but not right up on it. A couple people to the right of the guy who actually seemed to be changing his opinion about intelligent design, if you remember him. Right behind that library is where I went to get my WA license.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Thanks, StephenB and Optimus, for your encouraging words. It certainly is hard, Stephen, to turn the cheek sometimes. I don't particularly like being constantly accused of dishonesty, duplicity, cowardice, poor scholarship, rhetorical gamesmanship, political machinations, etc.; I don't enjoy insults to my research work and insinuations that I don't deserve academic employment (while, of course, someone else does). And I don't like it when my attempts at peacemaking and to put past conflicts behind are thrown back in my face as insincere, and when someone who refuses to answer honest questions asked in good faith accuses me of failing to answer in good faith, when I've bent over backwards to answer every query asked of me (except those involving personal matters) as fully as possible. It would be much easier (and faster) to lash back with answers in kind. Composing myself, and then composing measured answers, takes more time and effort. But I feel I owe it to the people here not to subject them to the vitriol that would be issued if I raised the temperature by striking back with insults, accusations about motives, etc. I don't know why certain people can't just argue about the issues: whether design is detectable in nature, without the aid of revelation, and if not, why not; whether design imagery is used in the Bible; whether God as designer is a theme of the Christian theological tradition; whether the science of ID is good, and if not, why not; whether TEs are consistent when they say that they believe in divine design and in the randomness of nature at the same time; whether or not TE in its most common forms is less Biblical than Deistic; why TEs hate natural theology so much; whether Fuller's endorsement of divine design is offered in the same spirit and for the same motives as in the case of Behe and Dembski; whether it makes sense, with Bejan, to talk about design without a designer; etc. Any or all of these things I would gladly discuss, politely and respectfully, with Gregory, and listen keenly to his opinions, willing to alter mine if his arguments proved better; but he perpetually turns every discussion away from such questions of contents and toward questions of personal or group motivation and questions of general social/political criticism. He tries to take every discussion away from "What is nature like, and what does it show?" to things such as: the group politics of the various camps in the origins debates; the flaws of "US American" culture generally; the flaws of creationism as a socio-religious movement; the labelling of everyone as either a Big- or small- ID/id proponent, the former accused of being crassly politically motivated, the latter virtuous; etc. There is the constant (false) assertion that I and other ID people have said that "everything is designed" in the ID sense, when in fact no one here has asserted that everything that happens in the human world is designed (though some things obviously are); there is the constant claim that every opinion anyone (except Gregory) offers on creation is a cloaked expression of ideology; there is the constant list of charges against Discovery and its personnel, including the imputation of malice aforethought in the cancellation of certain programs by Discovery, and personal digs against West, Chapman, etc. It is as if all questions of scientific, philosophical and theological truth are to be set aside because the only truths are political truths -- about the various motivations and machinations of prejudiced and ideology-driven human beings. This strikes me as the modern, deconstructionist agenda -- the assault on the very idea of truth, the attempt to turn the university away from seeking truth and make it self-consciously a community of warring camps, each driven by self-interest. It thus stands opposed to everything I believe both as a scholar and a human being, a human being who reverences not only the truth but the Western civilization which, until recently (when deconstructionism and other forms of moral and intellectual nihilism took root and started to eat away that civilization from the inside), was noble precisely because it believed that truth could be found and lived. Gregory, of course, cannot believe that I have any motivations as noble as those I have just defended. He is convinced that I am a purely political animal who cares only for the political victory of ID. But why should I care for the political victory of ID? If ID is not truth, I want no part of it. If TE is truth, I will embrace it. If something else is truth, I will embrace it. All I ask is that Gregory stop hiding behind political discussions and tell us what *he* believes to be the truth -- the truth not about politics and dark human motivations, but the truth about nature, and the truth about God, and the truth about Christianity. But he will not speak about these topics, except insofar as he mocks and belittles the answers provided by everyone else here when they speak about them. So how can I, how can any of us, converse constructively with Gregory? If he will not lay down his anger over political concerns, and address theoretical questions about nature and God, there is simply nothing useful that he can say to any of us, and nothing useful that any of us can say to him. What would Gregory have us do? What does he want from us? To serve as his punching bag, so that he can take out his frustrations with Discovery (whatever they are, and whatever personal history there may be) on all of us, and blame each of us individually for all of its shortcomings, even though none of us (to my knowledge) has any position in that organization? Or does he want us to praise social science as every bit as important as natural science, in order to redress some slight that he has received in his own academic career from the natural scientists? Or does he want us to simply abandon ID and adopt his view of God and nature and origins -- even though he won't tell us what his view is? Gregory's behavior leaves us helpless. We cannot please him by what we do now; and we have no idea what we could possibly do differently, because we have no conception of his ultimate aims or motives. All we know is that he is constantly very angry with all of us and ready to jump down our throats no matter what we say or how politely we say it. So Gregory, if you are listening: We don't know what you believe about God. Tell us. We don't know which branch of Christianity you affirm as your own. Tell us. We don't know what, for you, is the role of the Bible in the establishment of Christian truth. Tell us. We don't know whether you think that design in nature is detectable without the aid of revelation. Tell us. We don't know which ID books you've read, and what your critique of the science in each book is. Tell us. We don't know why you endorse Fuller but reject his central teaching about univocal predication. Tell us. This is my plea. And if it remains unanswered, I see no point in engaging with Gregory further. What do you think, Stephen? Is this conclusion reasonable?Timaeus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

@ Timaeus & StephenB You guys are class acts! Appreciate your comments @ Mung Hey I remember you saying that you went to that 'Analytic Philosophy Club' meeting at Lakehills. Were you at the table in the middle? I was the guy with the hat...Optimus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, thanks very much for your kind words. Like you, I have no reason to believe that Gregory will respond to, absorb, or even consider my corrective. It seems that he hears only what he wants to hear. Permit me, though, to take time out for an editorial comment: The calm and non-judgmental spirit with which you tune out Gregory’s gratuitous personal attacks has been an inspiration to me.StephenB_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

"Behe and Collins both claim to speak for science." - Karl Giberson really?Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Excellent reply to Gregory, StephenB. I predict that Gregory will not engage with you at all on the passages you have quoted from Humani Generis. It's pretty hard to explain away official Catholic teaching, and admitting error is not his style. But he'll be back, a week or a month from now, here or on some other site, speaking confidently about the Catholic position -- though he's not Catholic himself and has no training in Catholic theology -- and will make the same claims, as if you had never refuted them. And if there is no one as sharp as you up against him, he may get away with it. You're invaluable.Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

So I am reading The Wonder of the Universe: Hints of God in Our Fine-Tuned World by Karl Giberson. Now leaving aside for now that a fine-tuned world requires a Fine-Tuner, and we just can't use that sort of univocal language when it comes to G-d, I'm reading a segment on Behe and Collins. After mentioning the books authored by Collins: "he [Collins] affirms the theory of evolution and the adequacy of the theory to explain the development of life on this planet." Then, after mentioning the books authored by Behe, including one with the title The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism: "he [Behe] denies the theory of evolution by unguided mechanisms like natural selection, claiming it cannot account for the development of life on this planet. He does, however, accept the common ancestry of all life." Now really, how muddled is this? It seems to me that Behe accepts the Darwinian mechanism, but says it may have limits. otoh, is he saying Collins believes in unguided evolution by setting his views against those of Behe [as a denier of unguided evolution]? Then we find this gem: "They are diametrically opposed on what the evidence from genetics is telling us about evolution." REALLY? So why then do they both accept common ancestry? Where does the evidence for common ancestry come from if not from genetics? And since when do Behe's arguments for intelligent design or the limits to Darwinian evolution appeal to genetics? Again, is he saying that Collins believes the evidence from genetics demonstrates that evolution is unguided and that unguided evolution is capable of bringing about all life on the planet? Why is it so difficult to find an honest discussion of the issues? What is his solution to deciding between Collins and Behe? More scientists agree with Collins. Argumentum ad populum? Scientist who agree with Collins are better credentialed than scientists who agree with Behe. More papers are published that agree with Collins. Grants are awarded! There are scientific meetings to discuss the view held by Collins. "This is not to say Behe is wrong." LOL! Man, I really need to type up his list of reasons. Oh, and as a final kicker: "The ideas about intelligent design promoted by Behe..." He didn't get Gregory's memo!Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I am grateful for your comments because, as usual, they provide me with a teaching opportunity. So, I will take each point in order:
You are not a YEC, StephenB, but nevertheless seem willing to happily break BIG-ID ideological bread with YECs with whom you disagree.
Well, sure. I can do business with the YEC's. Not only do they write with refreshing clarity and unadulterated sincerity, they define their terms, answer my questions, and respond to my challenges. I try to return the favor by answering their questions. Because they are honest and forthcoming, I have managed to find my point of contention with them, which is their denial of, and my acceptance of, "uniformitarianism." That is what true dialogue can do. If only the TEs or anti-ID sociologists would be equally forthcoming.
The only thing you can do as an IDist is to embrace a ‘little-big-tent’ which you (as a Catholic Christian) actually needn’t confidently defend.
It might surprise you to know that the only thing I care about is the truth. If a YEC, or a OEC, or a TE, or the Discovery Institute stumbles onto to any portion of it, I will accept it with gratitude. Territorialism is not part of my gig.
So many Catholics have already seen through the ideology that is being propogated by ‘natural-science-only’ Big-IDism. It would surprise me if you would still defend Big-IDism, just because of some kind of a fetish with a 19th c. ‘Darwin-from-Down’ scholar in the U.K.
I don't understand why you would say that a detectable pattern in nature is an ideology or why the Catholic Church would disdain such paradigms as "specified complexity" or "irreducible complexity." You ought to read "The Evidential Power of Beauty," by Fr. Thomas Dubay, a pro-ID catholic priest (Thomist). Any Catholic who opposes "Big ID" in the name of Catholicism understands neither ID nor Catholicism.
I have outgrown Charles R. Darwin, but it doesn’t seem like anyone in the IDM is prepared to even recognise how this is possible or preferred!
If you have outgrown Charles Darwin, we can clearly do business in that context.
They seem to want natural-science-only reductionism instead; they want Big-ID scientism. If they didn’t then they would elevate the work of Steve Fuller, the most insightful ‘ID/id’ advocate of the current era.
Steve Fuller has provided some interesting ideas that can serve as thought stimulators, but I don’t think he has thought them through to any appreciable degree.
People speak in your name here, StephenB, as IDists, denying that ‘evolution’ has any theory-value at all!
Let me try to help you out here with the meanings of key terms. I think that most ID proponents accept Darwin’s Special Theory of Evolution, but they reject Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution. Do you know the difference?
And yet you willingly allow them to represent you. That position, however, is obviously unworthy of serious consideration; it is uneducated, it is primitive.
Since I don't know what you mean by "that position" or "it," I cannot comment. You will recall that I had to make the necessary distinctions in your preceding comment in order to infuse meaning into your otherwise meaningless words.
It is as if you would support the ignorance of (some) evangelical Protestants that claim ‘science is from the devil’ because of some feud you have with the global Catholic acceptance of Evolutionary Creation. There is no need to do that.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The beauty of creation reflects the infinite beauty of the Creator, and ought to inspire the respect and submission of man’s intellect and will.” Who is more likely to admire the beauty of creation? Will it be a Big ID advocate, who thinks that God designed a bird’s wings, or an evolutionary creationist, who thinks that biological design is an illusion?
People holding leadership positions in the little-big-tent (Chapman, Meyer, West, et al.) openly welcome creationist supporters as comrades because they promote Big-ID. This is both an obvious and necessary path of the IDM. Otoh, BioLogos actually has the courage of the Catholic Church to reject ‘creationists’ and disallow them to spread their propaganda as if people should believe it. Do you not stand with the Catholic Church in opposing YECism and in educating young believers.
I stand with the same Catholic Church that rejects any explanation that posits the emergence of mind from matter or the heretical notion of polygenism, which is standard fare for evolutionary creationists and the muddle-headed partisans at BioLogos. From Humani Generis “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. 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 official teaching of the Catholic Church fits in with Big ID, but it doesn’t fit in with your trendy “Catholic” friends at BioLogos. Another one of your fantasies has been destroyed by a disgusting little fact.StephenB_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: Just an administrative question, as most people here don't know much about the inside machinations of UD. I've noticed that you've made a few comments lately (see 16 above for an example) about people's language, as if reprimanding them. I think that in one discussion -- on one of your own columns -- you actually deleted or altered some words that you found offensive. I'm wondering if these comments reflect merely your personal opinion regarding inappropriate language, or whether you speak in some official capacity for UD when you make them. For example, have you been appointed one of the moderators? I'm not complaining about anything you have done -- though I think that if Joe had been censored for the word "arse" (admittedly inelegant language) that would be too heavy-handed, especially given the provocation. I'm merely trying to establish whether people here have to abide by your "language code," and whether that language code is one authorized by Barry, etc. Also, if there is a formal list of forbidden words (though I'd hate to think that freedom of speech defenders like ID people would maintain such a list on the UD site), it might be good to put that list up on a linked page somewhere, so everyone who contributes to UD can read know the rules, instead of having a veto or change sprung on them out of the blue. More generally, it might be helpful if UD provided a list of the people who are authorized to moderate these discussions. I know that Clive Hayden no longer does it, and I don't know who the current people with moderators' powers (beyond Mr. Arrington, obviously) are. Best wishes.Timaeus_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply