Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
The point is people attack design for theological reasons, and then people try to ice the cake for evolution by trying to make it appear to be theologically appealing. Bu asking questions like "you think there are any major theological problems with theistic evolution?". You can basically tag theism to anything without a problem if that is your goal, if I really believed for religious and metaphysical reasons that God would use alchemy to transform one metal into another, I can harmonize theology fairly easily with alchemy, but just because alchemy can be in harmony with theology this doesn't mean I should try to sell alchemy because it appears to be in harmony with theology. Theistic Evolutionists don't seem to be getting this.Polanyi
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
//So the issue between darwinism and ID is not commond descent but on the machnisms of how things evolved?// Darwin's contribution was not evolution defined as change over time, not even descent from a common ancestor no. Darwin's contribution was how this had to happened. It's thanks to Charlie that we are now suppose to believe evolution is blind, purposeless, unintelligent, unguided. Darwin was convinced of this for religious and metaphysical reasons[you see cats happen to play with mice, this was all the evidence Darwin needed to rule out design].This is Darwin's pathetic legacy, and then people have the nerve to reserve to theology to defend this.Polanyi
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
It's safe to say that whatever faith Ayala has does not require sharing that faith -- so he's not an Evangelical! Also, with no evident sense of irony, the Templeton Foundation gave Ayala its most prestigious award -- FOR ADVANCING THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION -- without inquiring into Ayala's own religious views. This is rich.kibitzer
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
@polanyi #6 So the issue between darwinism and ID is not commond descent but on the machnisms of how things evolved?above
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
"I would imagine he reconciles himself with “naturalistic evolution” in much the same manner as, oh I dunno, the Pope?" The statement from a pope above, which we have seen a few times before, is 100% consistent with ID.jerry
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
But meanwhile, do you think there are major theological problems with Theistic Evolution? No there is no problem with theistic evolution, no more than there are theological problems with theistic alchemy, sure there might be scientific problems, but no theological problems no. Sorry I will let Professor Dembski answer, I just couldn't resist.Polanyi
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Professor Dembski, Over at Biologos I made clear my vision for a "peace agreement" between them and ID: 1) An acknowledgment by both sides that there are no major theological objections to either ID or Theistic Evolution. 2) An acknowledgment that the major disagreements are merely scientific in nature. 3) An agreement that the main spokespeople would refer to the "other side" with respect and love. It looks to me as if Biologos is attempting to institute (3), lately -- for example, by allowing a positive review of your book. I think it would help if they disavowed Ruse's and Ayala's recent theological attacks. But meanwhile, do you think there are major theological problems with Theistic Evolution?Bilboe
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
//Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.// But this is not evolution, Jerry Fodor explains: "it's important to see that the phylogeny could be true even if the adaptationism isn't . . . the classical Darwinist account of evolution as primarily driven by natural selection is in trouble on both conceptual and empirical grounds." Bad Pope..Polanyi
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
DonaldM @2:
I’d like for Ayala to explain how he reconciles the Catholic (read: Biblical) teaching that “In the beginning was the Word (the Logos)…and all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made…” with “In the beginning were the particles…”
Well, setting aside the fact that the theory of evolution is not particle physics, and assuming for the sake of argument that he remains fully committed to Catholicism, I would imagine he reconciles himself with "naturalistic evolution" in much the same manner as, oh I dunno, the Pope? To wit, this fully Pope-approved text:
In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Doomsday Smith
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Ayala is screwed here because either his views are indistinguishable from atheist views, or he is like us, a heretic, Dembski asked him a clever little question here, what would Ayala choose? blasphemy or atheism? Ayala takes the lazy way out, and refuses to answer.Polanyi
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
I wish that you were either hot or cold...Gods iPod
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
The implication is clear enough. Like another well known Catholic Darwinian, Ken Miller, Ayala wants to wrap his theological credentials around his adherence to Darwinian dogma. Somehow, both he and Miller (and others of that ilk) mistakenly believe that they've somehow reconciled what they claim to believe as Christians (and aren't Catholics Christians by definition) with naturalistic evolution. I'd like for Ayala to explain how he reconciles the Catholic (read: Biblical) teaching that "In the beginning was the Word (the Logos)...and all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made..." with "In the beginning were the particles..." Ayala's reticence to discuss his current beliefs doesn't surprise me. Either he's abandon the core beliefs he claimed adherence to when he took his priestly vows, or he still retains them. If the former, then why the ruse in constantly referring to his Catholic credentials, as if that somehow makes his acceptance of and adherence to Darwinism more palatable? If the latter, then clearly he's got a lot of explaining to do. Or, perhaps he's taken a third route and modified (or rejected)just some of the core beliefs he once vowed adherence to. If so, why can't he explain which ones those are and what criteria he uses to determine which beliefs may be safely adhered to, and which must be modified or rejected in order to maintain "scientific" respectability. And once he's explained that, he can further explain why that criteria is correct and how he knows it is.DonaldM
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
I don't think there is any reason to believe Ayala is even a theist, for someone to go as far as he does, I would say is far less to pretend one is a theist. Clearly for people like Ayala political correctness is uber alles.Polanyi
May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
1 9 10 11

Leave a Reply