Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala — But does he really believe what he’s saying?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Francisco AyalaHere’s an excerpt (translation follows) from a remarkable interview with Francisco Ayala by one of the most prominent media outlets in Spain. One wonders how a Catholic priest, even a former Catholic priest, can actually believe all this. In his book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion he calls me (a mathematician by training) a “sociologist.” Given his remarks below, apparently anyone who is not the right sort of scientist is, in Ayala’s view, a sociologist. Great to see the Templeton Foundation supporting him.

Source:  http://www.abc.es/20100506/ciencia-/barbaridad-culpar-dios-disenado-20100506.html

Entrevista realizada al biólogo Francisco J. Ayala
Diario ABC, Madrid, 6 de Mayo de 2010
Entrevista: A. Grau, Nueva York

 -Usted ha recibido muchos premios y reconocimientos en EEUU por su lucha sin cuartel contra el llamado creacionismo. ¿De donde saca su fuerza este movimiento?

 -En realidad de poca gente. De los cinco o siete científicos a sueldo del Discovery Institute, sólo uno es bioquímico profesional, el resto vienen de las ciencias sociales. Ni siquiera es una cuestión de convicciones. Me consta que ellos no creen lo que dicen.

 -Pero otra gente sí.

 -Sí, hay gente que lo cree de buena fe, del mismo modo que toman la Biblia en un sentido literal, ingenuamente. El creacionismo es la mayor aberración que se puede concebir no ya para la ciencia sino para la fe. Es una barbaridad que trata de resolver el reto de la teodicea, es decir, de cómo conciliar la existencia del mal en el mundo con la de Dios, echándole a Dios la culpa de todo lo que va mal. Que no otra cosa es el diseño inteligente.

 -Porque el mundo está mal diseñado.

 -No puedo concebir nada más desastroso para la religión que el diseño inteligente. Según sus promotores Dios sería el responsable de los tsunamis, del terremoto de Haití, de las erupciones del Vesubio. Los defectos genéticos serían un castigo de Dios, así como la crueldad de la Naturaleza y de todo el mundo viviente. ¿Sabía usted que el 20 por ciento de los embarazos se malogran antes del tercer mes porque el canal de natalidad humano es muy imperfecto? ¿Y le parece a usted serio considerar que 20 millones de abortos al año pueden ser culpa de Dios?

……………………

 TRANSLATION:
 Interview with biologist Francisco J. Ayala
ABC Journal, Madrid, May 6, 2010
Interview: A. Grau, New York

 –You have received many awards and recognitions in the United States for your relentless fight against the so-called creationism. Where does this movement draw its strength from?

 -In reality, from very few people.  From the five or seven scientists in the Discovery Institute’s salary, only one is a professional biochemist, the rest are from the social sciences.  It is not even a matter of conviction. I am certain that they do not believe what they say.

 – But other people do.

 -Yes, there are people who believe in good faith, in the same way that they take the Bible in a literal sense, naively. Creationism is the biggest aberration which can be conceived—not to science—but to faith. It is an atrocity that it attempts to solve the challenge of theodicy; that is to say, on how to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with that of God, pouring on God the blame for everything that goes wrong. What no other thing is intelligent design.

 -Because the world is poorly designed.

 -I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to religion than intelligent design. According to its promoters, God would be responsible for tsunamis, the earthquake in Haiti, the eruption of Vesuvius. Genetic defects would be a punishment from God, as well as the cruelty of nature and the living world. Did you know that 20 per cent of pregnancies are hindered before the third month because the human birth canal is very imperfect? And do you think it seriously to consider that 20 million abortions a year may be God’s fault?

Comments
From the Wikipedia entry on spontaneous abortion.
Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[4] Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, in most cases, they occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.[5]
Human designers are neither all-knowing nor all-powerful so it is reasonable to expect that their products, whether cars or anything else, will be imperfect. The Christian God, on the other hand, is presumed to have both of the attributes mentioned above so it is reasonable to expect His work to be of a higher standard. And while Intelligent Design itself makes no claim about the nature or identity of the designer, it is quite clear that most of its leading proponents believe it to be God.Seversky
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Here is the video of Dr. Craig addressing Ayala on this very topic of "Bad Design" in a debate he lost badly; Refuting The Myth Of "Bad Design" vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).,,,Do they really think a modestly equipped seminary student would be tongue-tied with a theodicy question? http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a ------------- Happy Mother's Day O'Leary; Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713bornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
The people who carry on about human over-population are almost always Darwinists. And they show what I consider to be the usual illogic. The human birth mechanism is badly designed, yet there are far too many people in the world? Of course. Makes complete sense. Once I get around to ordering a universal swivel joint for my head. I may be the only person in this discussion who has actually given birth (twice), and I did not even need painkillers. That was quite usual among my social circle. I do have a friend whose baby died in utero (placenta abrupta). But anyone who supposed that the universe does not show evidence of design just because that kind of thing sometimes happens is right up there at the genius level with the guy who thinks Toyota did not design his car because it broke down at one point. The reality is that most maternal deaths are easily preventable when competent medical care is available. And most of the reasons it is not available are cultural, not informational. Lots of people know how to fix these problems, but they are not there when needed. The important question is how to get them there. I recommend Jean Chamberlain Froese's "Where have all the mothers gone?" for some useful perspective on this, though there are doubtless other useful books as well.O'Leary
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
Ayala says: Did you know that 20 per cent of pregnancies are hindered before the third month because the human birth canal is very imperfect? Ayala obviously loves this example which he maybe believes he was the first who has invented it. Here it is in different clothes (more emotive) on Biologos where Ayala has taught about "bad desing" as well.: But humans are chock-full of design defects…The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.” (I would like to know what "innocent" means in darwinian parlance btw. Does it mean without sin? Can any darwinist here explain?) Actually the very same argument of "narrow birth canals" was used by Swiss zoologist Adolf Portmann but - against natural selection itself. According Portmann there is no reason why canals could not have been wider. Consequently women with wider canals should have had more offspring, survival advantage, blablabla, you know all those darwinian mantras... This "natural selection" is quite bizarre force. On the one hand is should have been responsible for perfect aerodynamics of some birds' feathers or "perfect mimicry" and on the other hand it has missed such triviality like "narrow" women birth canals. http://cadra.wordpress.comVMartin
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Has Ayala read any substantive ID literature? I suspect not, and I suspect that even if he did, he would not have the hard-science and basic mathematical background to even comprehend, on the most trivial level, what an inference to design is all about. Arguing with people like Ayala about a design inference in biology is like arguing with a second-grader about basic differential calculus. The fact that tenth-rate intellects like Ayala are funded at public expense in public institutions is nothing short of a travesty.GilDodgen
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Mrs O'Leary, I agree, that part of Job makes it clear that God doesn't have to answer to our preconceptions of benevolence. Theodicy is a worthless exercise. But it is also impossible to equate God's design with human design, therefore.Nakashima
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
I keep noting that people who support ID get upset when charged with being the same as creationists. My observation is that creationists cite God, whilst ID advocates cite a 'designer'. Who would this 'designer' be? Can someone please give me a clear and concise differentiation between these theories? I've seen innumerable contradicting examples within various topics of discussion.Tom Sawyer
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
I wish this site would leave theology out and stick to science To smordecai & Phaedros: I couldnt agree more. For a blog that is discussing an allegedly scientific subject, this blog seems to spend an inordinate ammount of time on theology.Graham1
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Again, I fail to understand how a man who actually believes what Ayala is saying can remain a Christian. "The wages of sin is death." God uses death itself as a punishment for sin. How could it possibly be any worse from Ayala's perspective? Perhaps he doesn't actually believe what he is saying?tragic mishap
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Ayala doesn't seem to realize that if it wasn't for earth's recent history of having a delicately tuned balance between forces of volcanism, earthquakes, erosion and the just-right number and degree of hurricanes and floods (all quite destructive)...then earth wouldn't be such a finely suited environment for Ayala to spew fallacious objections, unscientific opinions and fear-mongering statements about ideas that differ from his own. In fact, if it wasn't for at one time or another, some human femaile having an unsuccessful pregnancy, again, Ayala wouldn't be here to make emotional appeals about it.Bantay
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Anyone who believes in God in the Judaeo-Christian tradition should begin any discussion of this type by reading the book in the Bible called Job. The part to which I would call attention is not the relatively boring argument between Job and his friends about whether he had committed a sin, but the part where God speaks to Job, I think starting at Chapter 38. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38-41&version=NIV God says, basically, that he takes responsibility for the things people think are imperfect. He is not asking anyone to bail him out. So the people who are bailing God out are wasting their time doing something God never asked them to do. It may be profitable in certain settings, but apparently not in that one.O'Leary
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
It was pretty fun watching William Lane Craig demolish this guy late last year. Debate audio is here.bossmanham
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Ayala: "I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to religion than intelligent design." Bornagain77: "I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to science than Darwinian evolution."bornagain77
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Dr. Sewell- I honestly don't think that people like Ayala want to believe God "actually" is, but just use their supposed belief for convenience or something else.Phaedros
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
smordecai- I think that's the main complaint on this site actually. If you would notice that so many of the criticisms of ID are essentially theological, even coming from atheists.Phaedros
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
I am curious as to whether this "priest" gives God any credit for the big bang, or the fine-tuning of the constants of the universe. If so, isn't all this really still God's fault? And if not, why in the world does he believe God exists, if He hasn't done ANYTHING?Granville Sewell
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Whether in Ingles or Spanish I wish this site would leave theology out and stick to science. I'm not Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Hindu. I find no apparent contradiction with my religion and ID but I still don't mix the two because that is not science. Let's just honestly follow the evidence wherever it leads and let the chips fall where they may.smordecai
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
What great scientific reasoning, let's apply this thinking process to automobiles. When we look at automobiles we might be tempted to think they look like they have intelligent designers. But what if we discover that millions of people have been killed and injured by cars? The obvious conclusion then is that cars must be the result of natural processes. It just isn't good theology to blame human automakers for all that carnage.Granville Sewell
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
It's easy to believe that the world is poorly designed when you look at just a few limited examples.Phaedros
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
It seems from this tirade and the recent ones in PNAS and Nature, that the shift of the science establisment's attack on ID has moved from the science front, where they have clearly lost the battle, to lies and slurs against the God who they would not like as much if He did not use only Darwin to create.idnet.com.au
May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply