How a liberal seminary prof started to see the point of ID

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 3, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Robert F. Shedinger, Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, and author of The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms outlines why he doubts Darwin as the Sage for the Age:

Because of the common stereotype, I expected ID literature to be filled with tendentious religious arguments and biblical quotations. Instead I was confronted with sophisticated scientific arguments. So I realized right away that what I “knew” about ID was wrong and that the stereotype about it had to exist for a reason. Then, as I began to read the literature of evolutionary biology, I noticed how empirically flimsy many of the arguments are. But more importantly, I noticed the ideological work the concept of natural selection was doing in this literature.
For example, in 1909 August Weismann openly noted how his support for natural selection was based not on evidence, but on the necessity of having a naturalistic explanation for evolution. Later, Ronald Fisher accepted natural selection by default on the grounds that alternative explanations were too close to vitalism. More recently, Douglas Futuyma hailed the importance of natural selection for its role in making biology a naturalistic science on a par with physics and chemistry. These are just a few of the many examples I cite in my book The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms. I came to realize that Darwinism developed in order to function as a scientific grand narrative designed to secure the foundation of biology as a naturalistic science, but in more recent times has grown into a philosophical grand narrative designed to naturalize and normalize a fully materialist worldview.
Robert Shedinger, “Confessions of a Liberal Darwinian Skeptic” at Evolution News and Science Today

Indeed. And that’s why there is so much controversy over teaching Darwinism in tax-supported schools with compulsory attendance.

If all the evolution teacher wanted to say is that life forms change over time and are not now what they were aeons ago, most people wouldn’t care so much—even if they disagree with a given proposition. It’s the “subhuman” lurking in the background…

… come on, we know you’re hiding him in there somewhere… how much did you guys pay for his costume?…

See also: Darwin skeptic Robert Shedinger calls out Paul Davies

and

Shedinger: When Darwinism Becomes Culture, Mental Issues Become Physical

Comments

Creationist conceptual scheme : 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / identity of which is a matter of chosen opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence Besides God, emotions are also in category no 1. That means people make choices out of emotions, and it is a matter of chosen opinion (judgment) what emotions are in someone's heart. Materialist conceptual scheme: 1. Material / existence of which is a matter fact forced by evidence So you can see in comparison that in materialism free will, emotions, God, the concept of subjective opinion, are all thrown out. This is why materialism leads to assert that what is good and evil as a matter of (scientific) fact. Because proper opinion is thrown out, now good and evil must be crammed into the fact "category". But actually it is the other way around, in that, because people have a desire to make what is good and evil a factual issue, that they then came up with materialism.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

ET: But that is moot as anyone who thinks that scientific Creation preceded ID is definitely ignorant of ID. I guess that depends on when you think ID started. As a major, popular trend I think it really got going in the 90s with publications by Drs Behe and Dempski. Science is OK with an Intelligent Designer for life and the universe. Well, for life anyway, depending on what we can find out about the designer(s): where did they come from? How did they do it? Etc. Science is OK with said Designer being the God of the Bible. I don't think that's true since you cannot subject God to scientific inquiry.JVL_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Glad to hear that you're an ID proponent, Seversky. Francis Crick also proposed directed panspermia. As a paradigm, I don't believe that ID has any official position about the source of this intelligence. Of course Biblical Creationists do, but I don't think ID takes any position with regard to God. My opinion is based on statements reported from the first ID conference. So why are many scientists so adamantly opposed to and even contemptuous of ID? -QQuerius_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Why are ID proponents so ignorant of their opponents position? We know there is intelligent design in the Universe. We do it. If there are intelligent extraterrestrial species then, in all probability, they do it too. If there are intelligent extraterrestrial species then they could have visited Earth billions of years ago and seeded it with life. As I have said, I have no problem with that possibility. You must ask others what they believe. The problem for ID proponents is would that satisfy them? Or would they face more serious questions, such as, first would such a discovery advance or set back their quest for evidence that their God was responsible for creating this Universe and all life in it and second what would it say about their belief that humanity is the pinnacle of their God's creation?Seversky_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

It just hit me that the name, "blind watchmaker," assumes the natural equivalent of a purposeful intelligence that puts components together carefully but in a hampered fashion. It also assumes that the biological world is no more complex than a wristwatch. In my opinion, a more descriptive name for this paradigm would be the "insane imbecile." In my opinion, ID is also a paradigm that, when encountering some new structure, compound, or chemical cycle, assumes there's an intelligent, purposeful reason for it that's not yet understood. It seems that ID is more scientifically productive when comparing the track records of both paradigms. The "insane imbecile" paradigm has provided us with things like undifferentiated protoplasm, vestigial organs (such as ductless glands), and junk DNA. While ID may have been incomplete or wrong on occasion regarding purpose, I don't recall any example of an ID approach being falsified by proving something has no purpose. Can anyone think of such an instance? -QQuerius_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

"... the stereotype about it had to exist for a reason." My favorite part. The reason is so all those materialists don't ever have examine their beliefs critically. Science is OK with ID, that those materialists aren't exposes their motives.David P_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

LoL! When compared to the blind watchmaker, which is accepted by mainstream, ID has more than established its case. But that is moot as anyone who thinks that scientific Creation preceded ID is definitely ignorant of ID. And in the end the religious nature of anything is irrelevant to science. Science is OK with an Intelligent Designer for life and the universe. Science is OK with said Designer being the God of the Bible. It is only spastic humans who take issue with it. I say spastic because if they had something scientific to explain what we observe then ID would be moot.ET_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

I don’t think I am ignorant of ID, even though I think it’s case has not been established. I will be busy for a few hours but I will try and respond later.JVL_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

"Why are ID’s opponents so ignorant of ID?" My take on this is that they generally are not ignorant of ID. They oppose it as is correctly identified in the first part of the question and that's really all there is to know. Andrewasauber_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

>> Why are ID’s opponents so ignorant of ID? Because some people believe that ID is unthinkable, they must construct a straw man to ridicule. However, such fallacious thinking is not exclusive to opponents of ID. Ideological contamination is likely in all of us regardless. I believe the highest respect should go to people with an informed view that's inquisitive, humble, and open to new information and new hypotheses. An informed "We really don't know" is far more scientific than forcing a flimsy "answer" that fits into a convenient multiple-choice test. -QQuerius_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Acartia Eddie:
Given that ID was created to distance itself from the religious nature of its predecessor, …
Except for the FACT that ID preceded Biblical scientific Creationism by more than 1000 years, Why are ID's opponents so ignorant of ID?ET_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Poli, actually, from Aristotle on, it has been well known that in rhetoric . . . the study and art of persuasive argument and presentation . . . there are three levers of persuasion: pathos, ethos, logos. Roughly, first are emotions, which are no more sound than the accuracy of underlying perceptions, judgements {so, prudence]. Second, is the credibility of an authority or presenter; no more sound than the underlying facts, logic and assumptions. Third, are said facts and logic with underlying assumptions, very much an acquired taste and challenging skill. The least appealing, least moving lever is the only one that has a chance to get at the truth. And, too often our en-darkenment is such that as Jesus of Nazareth once warned, 'BECAUSE I tell the truth, you are unable to bear it . . . ' Telling. KFkairosfocus_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Because of the common stereotype, I expected ID literature to be filled with tendentious religious arguments and biblical quotations.
Given that ID was created to distance itself from the religious nature of its predecessor, scientific creationism, I would expect its literature to avoid “ tendentious religious arguments and biblical quotations” at all cost.Ed George_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

That “subhuman” lurking in the background died about 200,000 years ago.MatSpirit_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Yup. Arguments never persuade. What persuades honest people is encountering the REAL info, not the advertised fake image of the info. It's important to have the REAL info passively available in a wide variety of forms and flavors, without an argumentative front. There's a nice presentation of ID in the Jehovah's Witnesses website. Good videos, no pressure, very little theology. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/polistra_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply