Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala: “You’re a heretic and blasphemer, but don’t ask me what I am.”

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

Darwin's Gift to Science and ReligionFrancisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse:

Dear Prof. Ayala,

I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Yet you left the priesthood and it’s not clear what aspects of the Christian faith you retain. Do you, for instance, believe in a personal God who created the world? Do you believe that humans experience continued conscious existence after they die? Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate? I would appreciate any clarifications you can provide. Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill Dembski

Ruse got back to me first and suggested that Ayala would not be forthcoming about his religious views, whereupon Ayala got back to me, agreeing with Ruse: “What Michael Ruse told you about my not asserting publicly my religious convictions is correct. I have stated that on numerous occasions, quoted in all sorts of publications from The New York Times and Scientific American to religious journals and periodicals.”

Interesting that Ayala is willing publicly to acknowledge his former theological views as a Roman Catholic priest (presumably he embraced RCC dogma). And yet his present theological views are off limits. Perhaps when Dover II rolls around, Ayala will be an expert witness and under deposition be required to state his theological views. In the mean time, Ayala’s reticence about his present religious faith (or lack thereof) is at best a convenient ploy.

Comments
If evolution knows where it is going and moves toward a specified end, it isn’t Darwinism; if it doesn’t know where it is going and produces a surprise, it isn’t Christianity.StephenB
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
One cannot be a Christian Darwinist and remain rational: If evolution knows where it is going and moves toward a specified end, it isn't Darwinism; if it doesn't know where it is going and produces a surprise, it isn't Chrisianity.StephenB
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Hi Phaedros, Yes I keep trying to grow up, but having reached middle age, I find it more and more difficult to accomplish. Please pray for me. Yes, geocentrism is nowhere near a Christian doctrine. Your point? Hi Timaeus, It's not clear to me that Miller's position is incoherent. For example, God accomplished his purpose of allowing His Son to be crucified, even though this required the free choices of human beings. But I agree with you that Theistic Evolutionists are mistaken in thinking that evolution is theologically necessary to account for natural evil. Hi Clive, Yes, we don't refer to theistic geocentrism. But Ilion's point seemed to be that there was a theological problem with TEism because it was indistinguishable from Atheistic Evolutionism. I don't think that's a defensible position. As for nature having a free will, Miller was assuming the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics, which suggests that subatomic particles are indeterminate -- similar to free will.Bilboe
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Bilboe,
I think I disagree. I thought Miller argued persuasively in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, that it is possible that God allowed “free will” to nature, just as He allows free will to humans, knowing that eventually it would accomplish His ends.
Humans actually have a will. Nature doesn't. You might as well say that the oak tree has free will, that leaves after they've fallen, and inanimate objects have free will. It's nonsense unless you're a pantheist, which Miller apparently is.Clive Hayden
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Bilboe,
But Christian beliefs about heliocentrism are indistinguishable from materialist/atheistic beliefs about it. Should we go back to geocentrism?
Did you miss the part called "Theistic" evolution? Have you ever heard of "Theistic" heliocentrism? Your response is a bad analogy. Clive Hayden
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Bilboe: I know what Miller argued in his book. But what Miller argued in his book is not coherent. There's no way God could possibly guarantee that nature would "accomplish his ends" if nature "evolves" through purely fortuitous events and purely stochastic processes. At the very least, he would have to bias nature from the outset, so that purely fortuitous events and purely stochastic processes would tend "upward" to produce higher life-forms, including man. But that view was not Darwin's view, nor was it the view of the classic neo-Darwinists from whom Miller takes his science. The question of theological acceptability is another matter entirely. With Miller, I'm more worried about lack of intellectual coherence than heresy. However, he has argued for heretical positions, e.g., that naturalistic evolution must be true, because otherwise God would be responsible for physical pain and evil. But there is no requirement in Christianity that God *not* be responsible for physical pain or evil. The traditional Christian view is that God doles out good and evil, war and peace, curses and blessings, pain and pleasure, on whom he will. If he wills that lions shall eat lambs, that's his prerogative. Miller and Ayala try to distance God from the killing of lambs, etc., by putting up "evolution" as a sort of plastic glove, to keep the blood off God's hands. But their theological motivation is intrinsically heretical: they start from a notion of what they think God ought to be like, and re-tool the notion of Creation to suit that view. But neither God nor traditional Christian theology cares at all what Ayala and Miller think that God should be like. T.Timaeus
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Bilboe- Please grow up. Geocentrism is nowhere close to being a Christian doctrine.Phaedros
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Ilion: Speaking for myself (and not for Dembski), the “major theological [and rational] problem[] with Theistic Evolution” is that it is indistinguishable from materialism/atheism; and the major sociological problem with “Theistic Evolution” is that the so-called theistic evolutionists are generally indistinguishable from Dawkins. But Christian beliefs about heliocentrism are indistinguishable from materialist/atheistic beliefs about it. Should we go back to geocentrism?Bilboe
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Timaeus: If evolution is understood as an unplanned and fundamentally unguided process, then the terms are incompatible. Otherwise, they aren’t. The problem with so many TEs is that they do understand evolution as fundamentally unguided, random, etc., yet insist this is compatible with the Christian conception of God. And the problem here is not the bare idea of evolution, but the Darwinian idea of evolution. It’s really theistic Darwinism that’s the oxymoron. I think I disagree. I thought Miller argued persuasively in his book, Finding Darwin's God, that it is possible that God allowed "free will" to nature, just as He allows free will to humans, knowing that eventually it would accomplish His ends. I think that is a theologically acceptable position, though I don't think that appears to be what in fact happened.Bilboe
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Ilion: Whether or not theistic evolution is an oxymoron depends on how the word "evolution" is defined. If evolution is understood as an unplanned and fundamentally unguided process, then the terms are incompatible. Otherwise, they aren't. The problem with so many TEs is that they do understand evolution as fundamentally unguided, random, etc., yet insist this is compatible with the Christian conception of God. And the problem here is not the bare idea of evolution, but the Darwinian idea of evolution. It's really theistic Darwinism that's the oxymoron. However, getting old dogs like Ayala and Miller to question Darwin is impossible. He's more than a scientific hypothesis to them; he's become the symbol of naturalism, science, enlightenment, etc., and he's their shibboleth against fundamentalism. They are simply not capable of dispassionate analysis of Darwinian mechanisms on the level of pure science. Until their generation passes away, evolutionary biology will remain mired in outdated concepts, and TEs will continue to do their schizophrenic dance, trying to pretend that evolution is simultaneously both guided and unguided and that there is no contradiction in saying this. T.Timaeus
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
If Ayala won't say what he believes he isn't a Christian.tribune7
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Ilion, Your response is befuddling. I bring up an ethical issue, and your response is to tell me to "grow up" and think like an "adult"? Ironically, that response seems rather childish. I think it is ethically wrong to make private correspondence public without the consent of the person you are corresponding with. That is a valid, adult concern. With that said, I accept Bill's explanation for why he posted it, and no longer find his actions ethically questionable. Jasonjasondulle
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Bill, I am so glad you asked Ayala this question and made his response public. He has publicly promoted his fading clerical collar as his confession of faith--and I, too, have wondered whether he could translate that gesture into words. For almost two thousand years, the confession of catholic (with a small “c”) Christians has been as follows: “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible…” This is the confession of John Polkinghorne in his book The Faith of a Physicist. The confession has never been as follows: “What Michael Ruse told you about my not asserting publicly my religious convictions is correct.” I must conclude that Ayala is not a catholic (let alone a Roman Catholic) Christian. The behavior of the Templeton Foundation with regard to i.d. has at least been intelligible to me, although I have not agreed with it. The awarding of the Templeton Prize 2010 to Francisco Ayala is not intelligible to me.Lutepisc
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
As someone who accepts an old earth, common descent and limited amounts of evolution I find both Ayala and Miller's popular books deplorable in terms of their treatment of ID! Over on Biologos Rich suggests that both of them are Christian Darwinists which is an oxymoron IMO but then their position is not intellectually sustainable either. Dave Wgingoro
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
"I am a bit troubled by the fact that private correspondence is being made public." Then, might I suggest that you look into growing up? You know, become an adult who thinks like an adult.Ilion
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Bilboe:But meanwhile, do you think there are major theological problems with Theistic Evolution?” Speaking for myself (and not for Dembski), the “major theological [and rational] problem[] with Theistic Evolution” is that it is indistinguishable from materialism/atheism; and the major sociological problem with “Theistic Evolution” is that the so-called theistic evolutionists are generally indistinguishable from Dawkins. If words were always used rationally, these problems probably would not have arisen. But, reality is what it is, and in the only reality we have “Theistic Evolution” refers to an oxymoron.Ilion
May 18, 2010
May
05
May
18
18
2010
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
In his debate with William Lane Craig concerning the merits of ID, Ayala mentions throughout his beliefs about god (will remain lowercase since he clearly does not mean the God of his former Catholicism). If someone were willing to really parse the Q&A time, I think his beliefs would be more clear. At one point, he claims to view god as a grand programmer at one point who set things going, but "never needs to intervene" as he says in response to one of the questions. At another point (near the end), both are asked why they believe in God. Craig spent about five minutes giving the existential and intellectual reasons culminating in Jesus Christ. Ayala says in about twenty seconds that his religious faith comes from the immense beauty of the world. I think there was another point in the Q&A where Ayala mentioned fine tuning as well. I think it should be clear from these statements that Ayala clearly believes in a deistic god at best. In direct questions about Christianity and religious faith he often answered, "one could say..." instead of "I believe..." I personally find that somewhat telling. Of course, he could believe and worship the Christian God and simply go through this maneuvering because he doesn't want to get skewered by his peers for holding to design arguments like fine tuning...one could even probably say that his "beauty of the world" reason invokes design, and his programmer statement clearly does. Who knows?Kyle
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
I wrote: "so why the disingenuous b16 straw man?" OOPS! I meant to write: "so why the disingenuous _B16_ straw man?"turandot
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Doomsday Smith wrote: "*sigh* "Fine: he was merely the president of the body that approved it. A body, by the way, which has only been given the duty 'to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.'" I'll suggest that you read the ITC document from beginning to end, and I'll suggest you consider that because then Cardinal Ratzinger _permitted_ the publication of an ITC document it cannot honestly be claimed that then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI _approved_ its content. "Given that, do you honestly imagine that he did not approve of the content of the text? Got any signs that since becoming Pontiff, that that position has changed or will do so in the forseeable future? If the answer to that is “No”, what might we infer from this?" Having been an avid reader of now Pope Benedict's published works for a good many years, I can quite honestly "imagine that he didn't approve of several of the ITC's claims." See, for instance, Cardinal Schonborn's _Creation and Evolution: a Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandalfo_ / Ignatius Press / 2008. Really, the question is whether Ayala is or is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, so why the disingenuous b16 straw man?turandot
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
People should read the Pope's statement. It is completely in sync with ID and does not endorse any particular mechanism for the appearance of new species. This statement has been presented here before so it is nothing new and nothing worth discussing. ID endorse naturalistic evolution in the sense that most evolution is through naturalistic means. Most evolutionary events never gets past the first decision point of the EF and thus is law like.jerry
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
according to Cardinal Schonborn:
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith. But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
link the darwinists twist what the catholics say to suit their own purposes, just as they twist 'science' to match their atheist faithtsmith
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
turandot @20: "Permitting is not approving." *sigh* Fine: he was merely the president of the body that approved it. A body, by the way, which has only been given the duty "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.". Given that, do you honestly imagine that he did not approve of the content of the text? Got any signs that since becoming Pontiff, that that position has changed or will do so in the forseeable future? If the answer to that is "No", what might we infer from this?Doomsday Smith
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
jasondulle: I decided that Ayala's one sentence email could be made public since he claims in it that he has publicly stated that he will not divulge his religious views, referring me to the New York Times, Scientific American, etc. Presumably this absence of public knowledge about his religious views is itself public knowledge, so I felt at liberty to share it.William Dembski
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Doomsday Smith wrote: "To wit, this fully Pope-approved text:" It seems that Mr Smith's assertion that the quoted text is "fully Pope-approved" is not true. In fact, "The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give[n] his permission for its publication." The ITC _approved_. Then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF, _permitted_ the text's publication. Permitting is not approving.turandot
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
I am a bit troubled by the fact that private correspondence is being made public. That said, I tend to think Ayala is not being public about his religious views because they are not Christian, and yet he wants to hold traction in the Christian community. My guess is that he is either an atheist or a deist (maybe it was his radical theological views that caused him to leave the priesthood).jasondulle
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Why would Ayala’s (or anyone else)religious beliefs be relevant in a scientific discussion?
One reason is because it is Ayala himself (and Miller, too, for that matter) and others of that ilk who basically rely on some sort of "God wouldn't have done it that way" kind of argument in order to justify their adherence to evolutionary dogma. They are the ones who insert a theological premise into what is supposed to be a scientific discussion. But in a larger context, it is science itself that brings religious belief into the discussion in the form of so-called methodological naturalism - the idea that whether or not philosophical naturalism is actually true, for the sake of doing science, we'll pretend that it is. Adherence to MN implies a direct religious argument that basically says that any observed phenomenon in nature MUST have a natural cause. That introduces religion right into the heart of science.DonaldM
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Why would Ayala’s (or anyone else)religious beliefs be relevant in a scientific discussion? Ayala rarely limits himself to scientific discussion - hence Dembski's reference to the 'heretic and blasphemer' charges by Ayala. If he stuck to science and had nothing to say about theology, these questions would not be asked.nullasalus
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Critter @14 A person's theological position is important because you need to believe in miracles if you choose to believe in Darwinian evolution.Bantay
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
I think some people might like this video. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLcabove
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Why would Ayala's (or anyone else)religious beliefs be relevant in a scientific discussion?critter
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply