Casey Luskin debated this topic on Justin Brierley’s show, Unbelievable, with Adam Shapiro, a historian of science and religion.
David Klinghoffer fills us in:
Adam Shapiro is a science historian who has cast stones at intelligent design in the past, and missed. Back In July 2020 he offered the strange criticism that ID proponents could have redeemed themselves by prejudging with regard to the COVID-19 virus and concluding (in the absence of needed evidence) that it was of natural origins, thus rejecting “the Chinese lab myth.” That critique has not aged well.
David Klinghoffer, “Debate: “Is Intelligent Design Advancing?”” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 24, 2022)
Yes, he actually said that: “Proponents could have demonstrated the apolitical nature of their claim if they had debunked the Chinese lab myth using their methods. Instead, they have doubled down against Darwin.” (July 16, 2020)
It’s pretty obvious by now, and has been for some time, that the lab leak theory of the origin of COVID-19 is a very reasonable one. But you can be sure of one thing: It wouldn’t have counted in ID’s favor that ID proponents would refuse to rule out the lab leak theory.
ID accepts Darwin’s ideas in genetics. The evolution of the virus is a genetics phenomenon.
People conflate two different definitions of evolution and ID should emphasize when this is done. But they don’t. They just attack Darwin’s ideas when in reality they accept them in genetics.
ID is Science+ and in no way conflicts with any legitimate science.
Seeing that Adam Shapiro is a science historian, I was hoping that Adam Shapiro would weigh in on how modern science came into existence in the first place. He did not. This was disappointing.
Shapiro said that the book that he wrote on Science and Religion was mainly concentrated on 19th century historical concerns about science and religion, and his main point in the debate seems to have been to point out that both Darwinists and ID proponents have misconstrued William Paley’s ‘watch on a beach’ argument.
Well, leaving Paley’s ‘watch argument’ to the side for now, and to be clear, and historically speaking, modern science came into existence as an outgrowth of Judeo-Christian presuppositions in medieval Christian Europe and certainly did not come into existence as an outgrowth of any naturalistic and/or atheistic presuppositions.
Indeed, it could be, and has been, argued that the very success of modern science is proof, in and of itself, that the Judeo-Christian worldview must be true.
As Rodney Stark, Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, stated, “That the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again.”
And as Robert Koons, professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, stated , “It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.”
Directly contrary to what atheists believe, it is simply impossible to ‘do science’ without first presupposing Judeo-Christian presuppositions.
As Paul Davies noted, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
And although many people on the ID side of the debate like to focus solely on the scientific issue of detecting design, and shy away from ever identifying the Designer of life and the universe as God, never-the-less, Stephen Meyer, (a leading proponent of ID who has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University), in his latest book “Return of the God Hypothesis”, does indeed extend the ID argument to say, basically, that the inference to God is, by far, the best, and most reasonable, explanation for the intelligent design that we detect in the universe and in life.
So thus in conclusion, seeing that Adam Shapiro is a science historian, I was hoping that Adam Shapiro would weigh in on how modern science came into existence in the first place.
Specifically, seeing that modern science was, and still is, vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions,,
,,, Specifically, seeing that modern science was, and still is, vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, I was hoping that Adam Shapiro would offer some coherent explanation for exactly why the decidedly ‘unscientific’ atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (with its core chaos, and/or irrational, presupposition), came to be seen as the ‘scientific’ worldview, whilst the worldview of Christian Theism, (with its core Logos, and/or reason, presupposition), which gave us modern science in the first place, came to be seen as ‘unscientific’.
To an outside observer like myself, and from a historical perspective, it certainly appears clear to me that atheists/naturalists have blatantly, and deceptively, stolen modern science away from Christianity which gave us modern science in the first place.
Verse and quote:
One of the most stupidest comments ever.
You should probably refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about.
And yes, I realized I used two superlatives together. But something this dumb deserves it.
Jerry
Does this get Scamp into the chuckdarwin Hall of Fame for “most stupidest” comments?
@Jerry :
Darwin wrote only books about materialist philosophy . If you think he wrote scientific books present one scientific argumentation of Darwin.
PS: Dawkins books just copied Darwin’s model. Philosophy presented as science. Many people bought the lie . They trusted the wrong people. It’s on them .
In a letter of Darwin to Edward Aveling( Karl Marx’s son-in-law)
:“Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effects on the public, and freedom of thought is best provided by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion and I have confined myself to science.”
[Herbert, S. “The place of Man in the Development of Darwin’s Theory of Transmutation” part II, Journal of the History of Biology vol 10 no.2 5-227 Fall 1977.p161]
Darwin fight was against God, not directly because would have been unsuccessfully but indirectly by science.
Who smels the metaphysical materialism ?
One of the top ones.
Maybe not the best of the best but a contender.
Or should I say the stupidest of the stupidest. He will have tough competition but he’s in contention.
Then, perhaps you can let us know what Darwin’s ideas on genetics, a term not coined until 23 years after his death, were. Was Darwin also a time traveler?
Another incredibly stupid remark.
Clue – does modern day genetics use any ideas that Darwin either invented or made popular?
Another way of expressing clue – are the essentials of Darwin’s ideas commonly used in genetics?
Jerry and Chuck know as much genetics as Darwin did.
In ‘Origin of Species’ and ‘Descent of Man’ he concealed all he knew.
Genetics – definitions
Or
Or
Essentially, genetics is the study of inheritance and heredity had been observed for millennia. Breeding is a subset of genetics and Darwin was very interested in breeding.
Your scrambling has been entertaining. The fact remains, “genetics” as a term was not used until 1905, years after Darwin died. Details are important.
I believe the proper technical term for this is “projection.”
By this logic Mendel had nothing to do with genetics.
Details are important.
when one is in a hole, stop digging.
Aside: I can produce genetics textbooks that discuss the ideas of Darwin in its development.
Aside2: what is the difference between micro evolution and genetics?
Scamp @ 3 – Darwin did have ideas about heredity, but an engineer pointed out that if they were true, evolution wouldn’t work.