Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If you can’t beat ’em… recruit ’em.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’ts hard to imagine a more exciting time to be participating in this discussion. Just the past 24 hours have brought some incredibly exciting exchanges and inside information, see here and here. But most entertaining of all is Eugenie Scott recruiting churches to defend Darwinism:

Check this out.

And this.

So, Eugenie Scott wants to join forces with religious groups to defeat… what? Defeat a scientific theory? Aren’t scientists supposed to do that?

Ever heard of a Trojan Horse?

I can see the strategy now. Somewhere in the dank, dark caverns of Oxford U….

Richardo: Hey, we obviously can’t beat these religious fanatics into submission with our profoundly brilliant diatribe – but only because they have weak minds or are just plain stupid and evil. So instead of trying to outwit them, since they have no wit (ha ha ha, I’m so brilliantly funny…) let’s just trick them into joining us! Yes, that’s the ticket. Hey, I bet I can even wear my favorite god-hating t-shirt and they’re so damn stupid they’ll think I’ve been bread again (or is it born again? Oh my, even my enemies must realize how great I am!).

Euginie: I just can’t believe we’re still even talking about this. But since we are I’d like to point out that it was MY idea to recruit the church so we can defeat those sickening ID religious fanatics.

Richardo: Yes, Eugie, but it was I who inspired your idea through proactive display of my brilliantly humorous and insightful parody of those poor idiotic knuckle-dragging droolers we’re trying to get on our side.

Eugi: OK, but I just can’t believe we’re still talking about this. I do like this picture of you in that wonderfully witty t-shirt though.

Is Richard recruiting American Christians?

Comments
Hi Tina, You asked, "If it is possible to believe in creation and random accidental evolution at the same time, I would like to hear this view clearly stated." I hope I can answer this question without this post being moderated for being too religious. I believe in creation and accept random mutation and natural selection leading to the common descent of living things. I don't think evolution is accidental, yet parts of it are random. To explain, I should point out that I also believe God was behind the divvying up of Israel, even though a random process was used (Numbers 26:52-56; Joshua 14:2; Joshua 15-19; Ezekiel 45:1). God used a random process to expose Achan's sin (Joshua 7:13-23). Saul was chosen as king by lot, but I think it was also God's will that Saul be king (1 Samuel 10:19-24). I think God also planned for Zechariah to be in the temple at a certain time, even though he was chosen by lot (Luke 1:5-9). And, I don't doubt that God answered the apostle's prayer by showing the right replacement for Judas when they cast lots (Acts 1:23-26). I don't think random processes pose an impediment to God. Setting up chance as an opposing force that foils God's will seems to me to be very bad theology. This is why I do not see the random components of evolution (or the weather or any other natural processes) as an impediment to God's will being done through these processes. God created and sustains these processes, and he will accomplish his purposes through them.Mercury
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Chris: The question of randomness has less to do with selection aspect of Darwinism that it has to do with the MUTATIONS aspect: RANDOM MUTATION plus NATURAL SELECTION. Saltational views of evolution, even those which are held by essentially orthodox Darwinists like the late Gould, still hold that the macroevolutionary changes are a result of RANDOMLY OCCURING mutational events within individual members of a species. The hopeful monster. This is the key area in which randomness is controversial. Lets say that by some unknown means a guiding intelligence could involve itself in the production of useful mutations in order to guide the development of a species in a particular direction. Then this would no longer be random. It would still be mutations plus natural selection, but not random. This seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of the thoughts of most theistic evolutionists, if I am not mistaken, and is not at all Darwinian.tinabrewer
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT

Tinabrewer,

Variation in traits is an integral part of heredity. Descent with modification involves selection for traits that permit greater survivorship. This is not random. Those individuals that are better able to feed, grow and reproduce consequentially leave a greater number of offspring that share beneficial traits. Thus natural selection is a directed process. Also, I think you may be drawing a false dichotomy between what you define as randomness and "change through time",

Best wishes

Chris

P.S. Apologies to DS for posting under what he considered to be an offensive name (holy_chimp) on another thread. I did not intend to cause offense. I was stating an opinion that we are so genetically and cladistically similar to chimpanzees that one of the few things that separates us is the fact that we have appear to have a soul. However, I realise that this may have been offensive and I am sorry.

What exactly is the appearance of a soul and what makes you think a chimp is lacking in that department? Not that I disagree I just want to know how you arrive at these conclusions. As far as I'm concerned there are a lot of humans that have no soul. None whatsoever. Zilch. As cruel and heartless as any animal. Worse, because the human ostensibly has the capacity to know right from wrong. What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures? As far as animals resembling people in the soul category elephants might have us beat which I blogged about here. -ds Chris_UK
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Sure Fross, let 'em bring their theology to the table, lay it out and let's go at it! Only problem I can see is that right off the bat they will be saying things like "There are no reputable theologians who don't accept theistic evolution, because if they do, they're not real theologians."jacktone
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
the argument from religious people that they are committed christians ( or whichever faith) and also completely believe Darwinism is completely empty. It is fine to say that one "accepts evolution" because evolution just means change through time in this usage. I think that everything hinges on the concept of RANDOMNESS leading to complex life. If it is possible to believe in creation and random accidental evolution at the same time, I would like to hear this view clearly stated. I have had many discussions with people who claim to hold this view, and when you get into the meat of the issue with them, they invariably end up by admitting that they just overlook the randomness aspect and focus on the obvious (and far less controversial) change through time part. Does anyone here have Ken Milleresque beliefs and could you clarify or elucidate this for me?tinabrewer
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
most of the I.D. speaking engagements I've seen have been hosted by churches and many times the theological implications of the debate are discussed. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to suggest that people on the other side of the debate can't do the same? For example, my Dad, a couple of cousins and an aunt of mine are all very devout Christians who are very involved in their churches, but they also work in the field of biology and accept evolution. Shouldn't they be able to discuss (in a Ken Miller sort of way) how Christianity is compatible with science? I think there are two areas of this debate. One is the science aspect. The other one, that definitely has more heat is the social debate. If I.D. or Darwinism is true, then how does that merge with theological beliefs. Or maybe it's Eugenie Scott being one of the people to spearhead this that is causing concern. It's possible that we may find a "Wedge of Cheese" strategy that involves getting Churches to accept evolution as part of a 10 year plan to change America into a Socialist, Atheist society. ;)Fross
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Just say NO to fanny-packs.Scott
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Nice try, Josh. -ds JoshyBozeyGarcia
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
1.41 million? There's bound to be something meaning in there. If they spend the night looking at all the possible combinations they might come across the word "the" and discover that inside that inconspicuous three-letter word holds the meaning of all Darwinian-evolved life.jasonng
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
jasonng: For the FFCD holy book, just print out about 1.41 million random characters. DS can probably provide a great seed number. That should help them discern right from wrong, or at least keep them busy for a while re-scrambling the text until something meaningful comes out. "42" ?dougmoran
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
Their eyes were built on a mindless trial and error process, so I don't know about that...jasonng
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
DS - Now now, beauty is in the (designed) eye of the beholder.dougmoran
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
DS - brutal. :)dougmoran
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
Richard's wife there in the picture isn't as attractive as I was led to believe.DaveScot
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Crandaddy: You hit the nail on the head. "Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction." -Albert Einsteindougmoran
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT

Poor Richard! Andropause is a terrible thing. Modern medicine can help him with that.

DaveScot
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Where does my church sign up? I belong to the First Fundamentalist Church of Darwinia, a church that believes that Darwin was divinely inspired to come up with his theory. We're going to make a holy Book of Darwin and sell it in the universities to unsuspecting undergrads.jasonng
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT

But most entertaining of all is Eugenie Scott recruiting churches to defend Darwinism:

Desperate times call for desperate measures. :-)

DaveScot
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Well Doug, That so many people are unconvinced of the neo-Darwinian explanation for all life simply HAS to follow from the fact that they are all Bible thumpin' Christian fundies who believe in a 6,000 year old universe! I mean the evidence is just so incredibly overwhelming! Why you might as well be rejecting gravity itself!!! I mean seriously! Take the bacterial flagellum, for example. I mean you have the type three secretory system as a functional subsystem of the bf. What more evidence do you need to show that neo-Darwinian mechanisms made it? It's just so obvious. It has to be Christian creationists. It just HAS to be! :)crandaddy
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply