ID’s Cultured Theological Despisers (#3)

Ah, Tribune Seven in Six above, What I remember of Feinman’s comment—though my memory is often flawed—was specifically about liberal theologians. Wish someone could find the quote so I could stash it in my “quote mine”. Rude

Thanks for mentioning that, jimbo. I find some of Sheldrake's ideas fascinating, and think he is definitely on to something. tinabrewer

You could also add another view (although it really fits more into Denton's "unknown laws of evolution" view) of Rupert Sheldrake, who argues for a form of vitalism in which biological forms are not determined by genes alone but by a sort of field effect. This allows for the inheritance of acquired characteristics (for which there is a surprising amount of evidence, all ignored because the standard gene-centric view prohibits it theoretically. jimbo

"The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility (well, actually, space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don’t require God; but these are way down the totem pole for most people)." In fact I think there is reasonably good evidence that humans and probably domesticated plants and animals were indeed engineered or rather, improved, by ETs. Yet this does little or nothing to solve the problem of the existence of complex life forms, and it does nothing to alter my faith in God. "Theism allows both ID as well as a form of evolution in which God’s purposes in nature are accomplished in a way that is scientifically undetectable." I argued about this to no avail with some people at After the Bar Closes. It makes no sense, although many scientist-Christians like Miller adhere to it. If we posit that there is a God, then we cannot possibly say that our universe shows no evidence of it, for we live in a universe that must be caused by God and we have no way to know what a universe would look like or behave like if it did not have a God. Certainly, a Catholic like Miller believes in a God who has purpose, and how can that be compatible with a willy-nilly universe in which life and man may or may not have ever come about? Apparently, Miller thinks God acts on the quantum level. That's fine with me, but this is an utterly different scenario than the one posited by Dawkins type of evolutionist. Also, if that is the case, who can say what science will one day be able to detect? Considering how far we have come scientifically in detecting many, many things that were quite recently utterly undreamed of, it strikes me as odd to insist that God's workings will be forever undetectable. The most deeply incoherent part of this belief system is the assumption that although there is a God, everything looks just as though there wasn't one. avocationist

My understanding is that Dembski at least considers the re-engineering model presented above. He is known for suggesting that God made man from dust -- litterally. Behe, I believe, is basically a saltationist. Let me also say that Denton's "law" view and front-loading are not mutually exclusive by any means. I think that evolution by law would do a lot of front-loading. bFast

bFast [comment #12]: As far as common descent goes, well, we now enter the question of definition. IDers assume that the fish preceeded mammals. Further, there is certainly something common, but lesser, about a fish than about a mammal. How did this come about? Is there a matable common descent from fish to mammal — was a fish able to mate with a pre-amphibian, then the pre-amphibian with the true amphibian. Was the true amphibian able to mate with the the pre-lizzard, and so on? IDers doubt this. One likely scenerio that the ID community sees is that a saltation happened — an injection of information. This saltation surely happened simultaneously in a mating pair. Another possibility is that a re-engineering, a re-release occurred; that the designer went to his database of the DNA code for a particular creature, implemented modifications, then built a new creature up “from the dust of the ground”. Both of these views culd well be seen as a form of common descent, but they are hardly classic common descent. Let me also say that there is a third view, the front-loading view. > I really appreciate your having taken the time to answer a question that's been thrown in my face for years, and to which I've not had a good answer. If I understand you correctly, you've explained that Dr. Dembski doesn't subscribe to the Darwinist "common descent" but to a much narrower and directed definition of the term? Do you know whether Dr. Behe shares Dr. Dembski's definition of the term, or does he [as I'm told routinely] accept the Darwinist common descent? Personally, I subscribe to the non-mainstream perspective that you attribute to Denton. Anyway, very interesting post. Thanks. turandot

Michael Tuite, as Dr. Dembski has not been one to chat in the forum, allow me to present what I understand to be the party line ID answers to your questions. Dr. Dembski and others, please feel free to correct me.

“Theism allows both ID as well as a form of evolution in which God’s purposes in nature are accomplished in a way that is scientifically undetectable.” Do you mean that God’s purposes are invisible to evolutionary science but not to the science of ID?

I beleive that what Dembski is saying, and I agree with him, is that if thiestic evolution were "the truth", if God's handiwork were so subtle that we could not detect it, this would not be a crisis of faith for Dembski, as for myself. In other words, Dembski is not an IDer because of fundimetally religious motiviation, it is the evidence of science on its own that brings him to the ID view.

“Evolutionary theory needs to be defeated not because its defeat would promote theism but because it is demonstrably false — period, full stop.” Do you mean both common descent AND natural selection? Haven’t you acknowledged acceptance of common descent?

ID has no quarrel with natural selection as one of the mechanisms of biodiversity, the primary quarrel ID has is with random mutation. NDE presupposes that random mutations has produced the fodder for all biological mechanisms. This position seems very much unsupportable by the evidence. As far as common descent goes, well, we now enter the question of definition. IDers assume that the fish preceeded mammals. Further, there is certainly something common, but lesser, about a fish than about a mammal. How did this come about? Is there a matable common descent from fish to mammal -- was a fish able to mate with a pre-amphibian, then the pre-amphibian with the true amphibian. Was the true amphibian able to mate with the the pre-lizzard, and so on? IDers doubt this. One likely scenerio that the ID community sees is that a saltation happened -- an injection of information. This saltation surely happened simultaneously in a mating pair. Another possibility is that a re-engineering, a re-release occurred; that the designer went to his database of the DNA code for a particular creature, implemented modifications, then built a new creature up "from the dust of the ground". Both of these views culd well be seen as a form of common descent, but they are hardly classic common descent. Let me also say that there is a third view, the front-loading view. The front-loading view, if I understand correctly, would suggest that there is true "mating" common descent. However, this view suggests that there is a non-random type of mutation. This non-random "forward looking" mutation would bild up data one mutation at a time until such time as an entire new feature, say the flagellum, was built up. Then the new feature would come into play. I believe that there is also a fourth view, a view presented by Denton and others. This view is certainly not a mainstream ID view, however. This view is that there are yet unknown laws of nature which are at work arranging everything to happen. Where "random mutation" fits into this view, I would represent, is something like this: when concrete is poured, a vibrator is often placed into the pour, the vibrator produces the movement that allows the air bubbles to find their way out of the mix. By the same tolken, the Law view would suggest that random mutation is likely one of the forces at work, but that there must be other unknown forces if law is to account for biology. This view, as well expressed by Denton, suggests that the strong anthropic principle which is rising out of physics, and which is certainly seen as a strong support for ID, will extend itself deep into the territory of biology. If nature, by law, is following a master plan which was initiated "from the beginning", this would certainly be an ID position. bFast

Hi, tinabrewer: "In principle, though, I think the idea is sound, namely that a religious truth should never fundamentally conflict with a physical/material truth, and that apparent conflicts are a result of poor or incomplete understanding from either the Biblical/religious or the scientific side." You're on to something, I believe. Going by the fact that archeology has validated every historical biblical claim it has ever examined, I am persuaded that all science will eventually concur with the Bible's view on origins, and much else. It may come as a surprise to some to be told that the Bible, rather than being the operating manual of ignorant flat-earthers, actually declared the earth to be round some 2,707 years ago. A good many centuries before scientists came round to that notion. The prophet Isaiah (Chapter 40:21-22), writing circa 701 BC, said this of God: "Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." The misfortune that has dogged Christianity down the ages is that many who wear the mantle of clergyman are not good Bible scholars, if at all. If they were, they would quickly see that the biblical worldview is the only one that makes rational sense for humans already wired to function in a rational universe. They key to it all is in God's self-revealed three-fold nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. First off, this speaks of God as relational. Throughout scripture these three "Persons" of the Trinity are seen exercising their various functions and responsibilities, which require rational intelligence. God made man and woman "in His image" (Genesis 1:27) with a mandate to likewise be relational ("go forth and multiply"), and responsible ("have dominion and stewardship over the earth"), which requires rational intelligence, with which God endowed man and woman. Our innate sense of right and wrong (our "moral compass") is only God's moral inage reflected in us. In God, this moral image is expressed as His perfect holiness. It is to that we aspire, even though we may now have watered down the lofty ideal to a bare code of conduct, mere ethics. Emkay

TinaBrewer, I think you give Padgett too much credit. Look closely at what Padgett said:

natural science ... does’t tell us about God. It never has.

Your interpretation of what he might have said would be a perfectly reasonable position to take. Again I remind Padgett, "The heavens declare the glory of God." As this is Biblical teaching, either science does tell us about God, or the Bible is in error. Let me also remind Padgett of what Mattison0922 expressed on this forum "Intelligent Engineering OR Natural Selection?" comment 3, "I am no longer an atheist BECAUSE of science, NOT IN SPITE OF IT." A very recent and real proof that Padgett is in error. bFast

Hello Dr, Dembski, At the risk of seeming adversarial, would you help me to understand what you mean when you state in your analysis of Padgett's interview: "Theism allows both ID as well as a form of evolution in which God’s purposes in nature are accomplished in a way that is scientifically undetectable." Do you mean that God's purposes are invisible to evolutionary science but not to the science of ID? In part 2 you state: "Evolutionary theory needs to be defeated not because its defeat would promote theism but because it is demonstrably false — period, full stop." Do you mean both common descent AND natural selection? Haven't you acknowledged acceptance of common descent? Thanks. Michael Tuite

While I am in general agreement here, I think on the issue of science and religion being compatible, the newsletter said "basic religious truths are perfectly compatible with anything that can be discovered by science" which is not at all the same as saying, as Dr. Dembski has rephrased it in his analysis "basic religious truths are compatible with any claim of science??". The distinction is that it sounds to me like Padgett was intending to say that anything which can be proven to be true within the realm of science should be compatible with basic religious truths. Unfortunately, science and scientists make lots of "claims" which are in no way proven to be true, and Padgett's error is in believing that NDE has this level of proof associated with it. In principle, though, I think the idea is sound, namely that a religious truth should never fundamentally conflict with a physical/material truth, and that apparent conflicts are a result of poor or incomplete understanding from either the Biblical/religious or the scientific side. tinabrewer

bfast *****“Christians need to get their thinking straight about natural science,” said Padgett, an ordained United Methodist clergyman. “It does’t tell us about God. It never has.” Psalm 19:1 NKJV The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Who am I to believe on matters of Christian doctrine, my Bible or Padgett.****** Brilliant! - Hypocrisy exposed! To which I would only add: "he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." Ja 1:16 chunkdz

Rude: was it this one where he was referring to psychiatrists? Feynman referred to psychoanalysts and psychiatrists as "witch doctors," because all their complicated ideas about ids and egos and so on, accumulated in almost no time at all, couldn't possibly be right. tribune7

Somewhere in one of Richard Feinman's books--might even have mentioned this before here--he expresses disdain for liberal religion: They can't even be wrong! (Maybe someone could "quote mine" Feinman on this.) At least the fundamentalists tend to make refutable claims. When stripped of all its risky claims, Judeo-Christian religion loses all credibility and can no longer be a moral force in society. Rude

This doesn't belong here, I know, but the Wall Street Journal today covers the story of geneticist Bruce Lahn. Lahn has published research on human evolution and brain size that may have disturbing racial implications. Francis Collins of the Human Genome project among detractors of Lahn's research. Don't know if this link is available without a subscription: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115040765329081636.html?mod=hps_us_pageone Selected quotes: "Dr. Lahn has drawn sharp fire from other leading genetics researchers. They say the genetic differences he found may not signify any recent evolution -- and even if they do, it is too big a leap to suggest any link to intelligence. "This is not the place you want to report a weak association that might or might not stand up," says Francis Collins, director of the genome program at the National Institutes of Health...." "...The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence. He personally believes it is possible that some populations will have more advantageous intelligence genes than others. And he thinks that "society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts" as scientific data accumulate. Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue...." "...Other research is starting to explain variations in human skin color and hair texture. But scientists tense up when it comes to doing the same sort of research on the brain. Sociologist Troy Duster, who studies the use of racial categories by geneticists, worries that scientists will interpret data in ways that fit their prejudices. He cites the sorry history of phrenology, a study of skull shapes popular in the 19th century, and other pseudoscientific techniques used to categorize people as inferior. "Science doesn't transcend the social milieu," says Dr. Duster, of New York University." russ

Whether theology, politics, or any belief system, there is a strong danger to modulate your beliefs in order to be taken seriously or to get approval from the majority. "I don't want to be lumped in with those stupid fundamentalists. I want the respect of my peers." I think that is the psychological subtext here. I want none of it. Lump me in with the fundamentalists! I'll put the "fun" in fundamentalist. I'm all in baby! geoffrobinson

And how about the way Scripture pictures these erudite nincompoops in the messianic age (Zechariah 13:4-5): “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.” Rude

Padgett:

“Christians need to get their thinking straight about natural science,” said Padgett, an ordained United Methodist clergyman. “It does’t tell us about God. It never has.”

Psalm 19:1 NKJV

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Who am I to believe on matters of Christian doctrine, my Bible or Padgett.

bFast