Jeffrey Schloss, and Now Richard Weikart’s Reply to Him

_{William Dembski

August 7, 2008

Expelled, Intelligent Design}

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

Jeff Schloss, formerly an ID supporter and Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute (until August 2003 — click here for Way Back Machine), has since been distancing himself from ID and even going on the offensive against it. I witnessed the beginnings of this offensive at a symposium featuring Ron Numbers, Howard Van Till, Schloss, and me in 2007 at Grove City College (go here for the program). His criticisms of ID at that event seemed to me naive and ill-considered. Yet he did seem to advance them sincerely, and I hoped to have an opportunity try to persuade him otherwise, which unfortunately never happened.

Schloss’s critical review of EXPELLED, however, raised his opposition against ID to a new level and frankly upset me for what I perceived as its disingenuousness (the review appeared with official sanction of the American Scientific Affiliation [ASA] on its server here). By offering so many nuances and qualifications, his review missed the bigger picture that many ID propoents really are getting shafted. I confronted Jeff about this and we had an exchange of emails. As it is, Jeff and I go back and had been friends. He contributed to the MERE CREATION volume (1996) that I edited (his essay was a fine piece on altruism and the difficulties conventional evolutionary theory has in trying to account for it). I even had occasion to visit him in the hospital after he had a surfing accident. The exchange ended with my asking him to admit the following four points:

(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

As it is, Schloss never got back to me. I suppose I could have responded to him on the ASA website — Randy Isaac, the executive director of the ASA, invited me, as an ASA member, to do so. But by putting Schloss’s review front and center as the official position of the ASA on EXPELLED, I saw little point of trying to argue for EXPELLED in that forum.

In any case, Richard Weikart has now responded to Schloss’s review on the most controversial aspect of EXPELLED, namely, the Nazi connection. Weikart’s response may be found by clicking here.

Comments

Ted David is gone but his words remain, as in 148: “They *accept* the evidence and chain of reasoning that goes into the grand narrative of evolution (if I can put it that way), and they aren’t about to sign up for ID unless it were unequivocally and absolutely committed to the legitimacy of such inferences as the earth’s great age.” In spite of all the nuanced chatter one thing is clear. Ted says that many TEs won’t enter the Big Tent because it’s too big, that unless we disavow the YECs and Common Descent deniers (and Global Warming deniers?) they will stand aloof. Well if that’s the case then who wants them? The age of the earth and common descent are empirical questions for which I have no dog in the race, nor should ID because they are irrelevant. Should ID be an organization with litmus tests for irrelevant issues just so that sophisticated people can avoid embarrassment?Rude_{August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Ted: Regarding your "common descent challenge"-- We Greeks are of course predisposed toward design. However, we have no rigid demands regarding how, when, or by what stages design is instantiated. So common descent is fine with us, as long as the Darwinian chance mechanism is rejected as inadequate, and an element of intelligence is introduced, before or during the process. Speaking personally, this Greek does not agree that common descent is a "slam dunk" -- the fossil evidence is much too spotty for that. However, the circumstantial evidence for it is pretty good, and I regard it as reasonable. The difficulty in estimating its probability comes in the fact that the proposed mechanism for common descent, random mutation plus natural selection, is preposterous. So this means that we are being asked to accept common descent without knowing exactly how it happened, or even if there is any mechanism within the laws of nature by which it COULD have happened. Until a fully persuasive mechanism is provided (i.e., not neo-Darwinism of the Coyne-Dawkins variety), common descent can never therefore be more than a plausible interpretation of the general shape of the fossil record. I accept it only under that understanding. Age of the earth? 4.5 billion years, absolutely, unless the laws of physics change over time, or God is fooling with us. And you know that we Greeks don't picture God as the sort of guy who fools around. Junk DNA? Maybe some of it is junk. From a Platonic point of view, or at least, the point of view my namesake presented in the dialogue bearing his name, creation is the imposition of reason upon the irrational impulses of unordered matter. So both the ID people and the Darwinians could be right; much more DNA than Darwinians think may prove to have a purpose, yet some junk DNA might be the evolutionary remainder after reason has done all it can with difficult matter. But then, we Platonists can allow this middle position, because we aren't restricted by the theological demand for an omnipotent God, but are answerable only to evidence and reason. Are Christian scientists who say that they accept an old earth and common descent automatically cowards? Not at all, if they really believe that the evidence points that way. The Christian scientists who are cowards would be those who know about, but are silent about, the weaknesses in the Darwinian mechanism, out of fear of ridicule from their fellow professionals, or who know that many lay Christians want clarification about the religious implications of design versus chance in evolution, but who avoid offering that clarification because they know that denying chance the full powers given to it by Darwinism will render them targets in the academic world. T.Timaeus_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Ted, Come back when you can. We are all better here for your comments.jerry_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Hi Ted Davis, Thanks very much for your answers and your example here. I've enjoyed reading your responses. You have my deepest condolences on the loss of your mother and your sad news. May God bless you, give you peace and hear our prayers for this.Charlie_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

KF didn't promise me in particular anything. He bade farewell to all of us. Then he didn't actually go anywhere. These are the facts. Don't blame me for being happy to see him and tedious long-winded diatribes and constant self-referencing leave the scene. We're all entitled to own opinions. If you're sad to see him leave then encourage him to come back. I'm not stopping him or you. Just don't expect me to act all happy about it. My personal opinion is his responses were so damn long winded it discouraged critical replies and caused more frustration than anything else. I stopped reading them a long time ago due to time constraints but I still had to deal with the frustration he caused in people with critical opinions I found of value. DaveScot_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Ted they aren’t about to sign up for ID unless it were unequivocally and absolutely committed to the legitimacy of such inferences as the earth’s great age They're already signed up for ID by being theistic evolutionists. Everyone who refuses to say that the universe lacks purpose and direction is an IDer by technical definition whether they sign the enrollment sheet or not. You're failing distinguish ID by concise definition: ID Defined
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
from ID as a political and cultural movement. You aren't "signing up" for the latter but you're a member of the former automatically because of your view that the universe has purpose and direction behind it. The age of the earth is not a part of ID by definition. If some IDists believe it's old and some young that's their personal opinions not the position of ID either as science or as a movement. Both camps fall under the same tent simply because they agree with the definition I posted above. If you disagree that design and chance can be discriminated from each other then your sole basis in saying that the universe has purpose and direction is faith in scripture. I would then rightly say it's you who has the irrational belief that doesn't have any place in scientific inquiry. The YEC people at least try to show that science supports their belief in Genesis. What bit of science supports your belief that the universe has purpose and direction if not the science of design detection? DaveScot_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Prayers for you Ted Davistribune7_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Finally (I don't plan to say any more on this thread), I agree with Behe's statement that "it doesn’t matter whether you accept common descent or not, they’ll shoot you down regardless if you don’t tow the line for Darwin." This does not contradict what I just wrote above. Let me elaborate. Owen Gingerich has taken plenty of heat on plenty of campuses, including his own (where he delivered the lectures that are published now in "God's Universe"), for giving a talk he likes to call "Dare A Scientist Believe in Design?" His answer, as you may know, is YES. When he gave it a few years ago at Pitt, one particular philosopher essentially read the riot act to him, and I know he's had similar experiences elsewhere. Owen is nuanced, respectful, and sometimes eloquent. He doesn't go for the jugular. But, he knows what he believes and is not ashamed to proclaim it. At the same time, he quite understandably senses that his views on what constitutes good science are not the same as those of most ID leaders, and he doesn't want to be identified as I.D., capital I and capital D, as he puts it. This is about politics, obviously, the politics of science, but Owen didn't do anything himself to create that environment. He publicly supported Guillermo Gonzalez (take a look at his book, if anyone has doubts), he unabashedly talks favorably about (a certain type of) design, and everyone on his campus knows that he's a Christian who doesn't believe that blind chance produced the whole shebbang. If ID had a different content and a different tone (ie, such that no one would easily confuse it with basic antievolutionism, let alone "Creationism"), and if ID didn't so carefully avoid the theological discourse that Owen includes in his talk, then perhaps he'd be on board; and others like him also. But ID is what it is, and Owen believes what he believes, and (at least presently) he wants to make sure that no one misunderstands him. I can't say that I blame him. Thanks to all who sent interesting questions my way, and apologies to those whose questions I didn't have the time or perhaps the ability to answer. Let me add a personal note. When I was here several weeks ago, I had to leave abruptly and said nothing more about it. I still won't be too specific, but two events made it impossible to concentrate on anything unrelated to those events, and I thought it unwise to continue important conversations. My mother died, and a few days later we learned that a family member was facing a very, very serious illness. Things are looking brighter now, for which I am very grateful, but it has been a difficult summer for me. Now that my concentration is coming back, however, I really must devote as much time as I can to the work I had planned to do before the fall term starts. Thus, I'm saying goodbye for now.Ted Davis_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Charlie-- Thank you very much for the kind words. I did in fact jump on the wrong topic when I failed to answer your question, but it was my eagerness to say what I said that got ahead of me. I don't think that it's at all reasonable to claim that Miller is a TE and Behe is a "creationist." Frankly I'd have to study the testimony again, very closely, to see just how this stunt was pulled. I heard Ken Miller say, at the start of the trial (I attended four days, including his first day and Behe's first day), that ID is a form of *special* creationism, which he did (if memory serves well) rather carefully distinguish from garden variety "creationism." Insofar as most ID leaders (as far as I can tell) do reject common descent, Miller's analysis was accurate. I said as much 10 years ago when I reviewed some ID books for a popular religious magazine. Clearly there was a reason for this: the plaintiffs were trying as hard as they could, to link ID with "creationism," b/c then if the court bought their argument (which is the case) there would be an obligation to make a larger ruling against ID--which is exactly what happened. (And, as I've said here and elsewhere, I don't blame the judge in the slightest for buying their argument, b/c the defense did little or nothing to refute it and judges shouldn't be in the business of giving briefs to the defense.) As for your other question, Charlie: "By what criteria do you determine that acceptance of an old earth and common descent is necessary in order to legitimize a design inference?" That's also a good one. The answer in this case is very simple. I don't believe for a minute that one needs to accept and old earth and common descent in order to make a design inference. However, I do think rather strongly that a viewpoint claming to be scientific in nature, rather than religious in nature, ought not to have any ambiguity at all concerning the age of the earth, and that it ought also to avoid making detailed arguments against common descent. If proponents of that viewpoint can't even agree that the earth's great age is established beyond reasonable doubt, then IMO it's not a valid scientific viewpoint: if the evidence related to that is not fully acceptable, then what is? I realize that not everyone will agree with the point I just made, but its importance to the ID/TE conversation that we are having seems crucial to me. DaveScot and many others like to claim that TEs are worried about their reputations, if they embrace ID. That's true. But the motive for this is very often said or implied to be a lack of guts--they don't want to take the heat, presumably for something they actually believe but are afraid to voice. (That does apply to lots of IDs, but if I were in their shoes I might keep quiet about it until after I had tenure, too. That's not lack of courage, it's just prudence. The IDs I know have lots of guts.) In fact, the people I am thinking of don't want their colleagues to think that they have any doubts about the earth's great age, and (at least for most of them) neither to they want anyone to think that they doubt common descent either. Not b/c they lack guts, but they just see no reason whatsoever to take heat for implicitly endorsing (in the minds of their colleagues) ideas that they don't actually believe. They *accept* the evidence and chain of reasoning that goes into the grand narrative of evolution (if I can put it that way), and they aren't about to sign up for ID unless it were unequivocally and absolutely committed to the legitimacy of such inferences as the earth's great age. If those inference aren't valid, then pretty much nothing in the historical sciences is valid--and that position just collapses into scientific creationism (a core principle of creationism is the utter invalidity of the historical sciences). But, as I'm always told, ID takes no position on this: why not, unless ID really isn't about science as much as it is about the politics of religion and science education? And, if common descent weren't objectionable mostly for *religious* or *moral* reasons, then why not also accept that idea, given the weight of the evidence from DNA alone? Why go to such lengths as to claim that the genuine *appearance* of common descent (as outlined by Collins and Behe, e.g.) is only that--just an appearance? Why so much energy spent on the claim that, in reality, the "junk DNA" will someday turn out to show that there's a much better explanation than common descent? Ideas with far less evidence, it seems to me, are rarely or never challenged outside of a small circle of scientists who have a personal stake in advancing their own pet hypotheses. If ID is really scientific rather than cultural, then why all the fuss? As I said, I hardly expect a lot of folks here to agree with this type of argument. But, I do expect folks to see that, for someone who does buy this type of argument, guts has nothing to do with this. Beliefs do--beliefs about the validity of the evidence, the validity of the forensic reasoning that the arguments employ, and beliefs about whether or not MN is tantamount to atheism. So, for the most part, TEs hold a different set of beliefs on these points. On the other hand, the TEs I know are for the most part (I could name a few exceptions, but I won't) more than willing to be known as strongly committed Christians (or in a couple of cases, Jews) who do not try at all to hide their religious beliefs and activities, even when they are employed in highly secular or even anti-religious environments. (And, please note, this is not what is often called the "privitization" of religion, not when you're leading Bible studies at the NIH and writing books that lead you to be featured against Dawkins in Time magazine.) True, their colleagues can't use their views of evolution as excuses to deny them tenure, but it's just wrong to suggest or claim that they won't identify as IDs simply or only b/c they lack the stones. Bottom line: it's unjust to blame people for not supporting a position that they do not actually believe, as far as they can tell from what they know about ID and what they believe about science. More than this, it's also unjust to blame them from publicly distancing themselves from a viewpoint that they think is even bad for science and science education--see esp my comments above about the historical sciences. Could they be wrong? Of course. But don't blame people for doing what they can to ensure that no one misunderstands them, in an environment in which misunderstandings are rampant and sometimes even deliberate. I'm sure you can all relate to that, at least.Ted Davis_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, By the way, I should add that I don't begrudge you choosing which questions to answer or how to use your time here. You certainly are not obligated to pick up every challenge thrown your way and I respect any decision to focus one's discussions as they see fit. I appreciate your participation, your opinions and your tone and don't intend to be badgering.Charlie_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Hi Ted Davis,
Nice question, Charlie. My best to you.
Thanks, and to you as well. But my question was actually not "why did she get away with it?" but "by what reasoning does one determine that TE Behe is a creationist and TE Miller is not?" Like you, they both believe the universe is 15 BYO (or whatever it's at today), all of life shares common ancestry, observation of nature gives evidence of purpose, and the designer could have influenced its development through quantum manipulation. You imply that whatever criteria Forrest uses to make this distinction is illegitimate. That's certainly my opinion as well. The other part of my question you didn't answer, and that is tied directly to the above. By what criteria do you determine that acceptance of an old earth and common descent is necessary in order to legitimize a design inference? If we all accept that there is evidence of design why does ID's limited scientific claim that it has been detected hinge upon whether or not the IDs take that extra-curricular step of expelling YECs or descent-agnostics? It seems to me you would be making the same error Forrest made except that you've decided to make it one step later.Charlie_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Ted re; Behe by himself Sorry, I didn't think your question was addressed to me and everyone knows my position on common descent and an old earth - I find overwhelming support for it. Mike's the only senior CSC fellow I know who accepts common descent at face value. But I can only name a few others I know who definitely don't accept it. I'd argue that as far as science goes Mike has the highest public impact factor. If a scientist comes out for young earth creationism I'd agree he's not only going to lose the respect of most of his peers he's going to get run out on a rail if possible. On the other Mike told me personally that it doesn't matter whether you accept common descent or not, they'll shoot you down regardless if you don't tow the line for Darwin.DaveScot_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Ted: I am impressed. You are really cranking out a lot of information. This is quite a good dialogue. Is ID science? Sure. It is a systematic approach to an inference to the best explanation based on empirical observation. You have heard it before, but the point bears repeating: Methodological naturalism, which is the academy’s tool for excluding ID from the scientific community, is a totally arbitrary formulation. In science, the method to be used always depends on the problem to be solved. There is no such thing as a method appropriate for all problems at all times. A new problem calls for a new method, or rather, an extension of the old method. Science will probably always be “primarily” about natural causes, but it can no longer be “exclusively” about natural causes. There is a new game in town and it goes by the name of “information.” Since methodological naturalism cannot accommodate it, it must be amended. None of this changes the capacity to study natural causes, nor does it inhibit us from searching for them. To me, a design is not synonymous with a “miracle.” It seems to me that a miracle requires a suspension or alteration of the laws of nature. I don’t think ID implies that, so I can only leave it at that. I wouldn’t call the design on a cave wall or in an ancient hunter’s spear a miracle, nor would I call the design in a DNA molecule a miracle. I think ID critics confuse this point by setting up a dichotomy between “supernatural” and “natural.” The relevant distinction is between intelligent causes (animal, human, superhuman, or Divine) and natural causes (defined as law or chance or a combination of the two).StephenB_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Congratulations on an excellent description of what I believe to be the mainstream ID position. I am pretty much on board with everything that you said.StephenB_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Ted -If I were to ask for a show of hands, starting from the top down, how many folks here and elsewhere in the ID camp would agree with Behe’s view that common descent is a virtual slam dunk? I would not raise my hand that it's a virtual "slam dunk". OTOH, I would not claim it impossible, demean those who believe in common descent, nor deny the reasonableness of their reasonable evidence. I suspect that most of those involved in ID would raise their hands to the position. Note that I will reject their unreasonable evidence, such as the fossil record indicating evolutionary gradualism.tribune7_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

And yes, jerry, you're talking theology. As for the design/TE thing, a lot of TE's (probably most of the ones I know) are happy to talk about "purpose," which is really design by another name; a number of them will also use the word "design," but others will shy away from that word b/c they have been led to think (partly by other TEs but also partly by IDs and esp by YECs) that if something is "designed" then it couldn't have "evolved." Since they are convinced that humans and other living things evolved (remember, I'm talking about TEs here), they shy away from speaking about "design." I hope I'm clear enough; please ask something specific if I'm not. I also hope I made it clear that the term TE, as I use it, includes both those who believe that biology gives evidence of purpose or design (Behe and probably Conway Morris) AND those who do not believe that biology clearly evinces purpose or design. Russell, Polkinghorne, Miller, Collins, and Gingerich would be examples of the second view. They all use arguments for cosmological design, while at the biological level they do not think that design is clearly demonstrable from the science. If you want to call them IDs, that's up to you (as I say, this is a matter of definition). They all affirm common descent as excellent science; they all (as far as I can tell) think that ID is reluctant clearly to embrace that piece of (in their view) excellent science, and thus they decline to put themselves in that category. Furthermore, at least some of these people (Polkinghorne and Gingerich, probably also Russell and Collins) would point out right away, that they believe the inference to design, while based partly on some science, goes well beyond science. That is, science alone doesn't allow one simply to conclude that design/purpose is true. Rather, they would say, the inference is ultimately metaphysical and/or theological in nature, b/c it can't be made (in their view) in the absence of beliefs about theodicy and the character/nature of God. In other words, for them the inference is not a slam dunk, but it's still the best overall explanation. As Polkinghorne puts it, "the universe is not full of objects stamped 'made by God'; the creator is more subtle than that." (Quoting from memory, I hope this is accurate.) As in this quotation, the word "God" is almost always used by these folks, and theology is not avoided. I hope this helps. If I understand ID correctly, the latter part of this paragraph means that this particular group of TEs are not properly seen as IDs. This is where I see myself fitting most naturally, and thus I'm probably not an ID by your own definition.Ted Davis_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

I second Jerry in 137.Rude_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

DaveScot-- Your replies are very interesting, esp the personal details. I'm with you on the infinite universe, whether called a multiverse or something else. You also said, however, something that I heard at least weekly from ID folks when I was on list with them, something that's absolutely ubiquitous here: "I’ve always argued that Theistic Evolutionists are IDists who just won’t admit it because of the abuse they’d suffer at the hands of Atheist Evolutionists who dominate the academy." If I had a thousand bucks for every time I responded at length to that one, DaveScot, I'd be retired by now. If you want me to rehash it all here, I'll do that--and you won't need to pay me a thousand bucks--but first, we have some unfinished business to get to. Forgive me for pointing this out, but you ducked my question. I hit your fastball, now you hit mine. How many hands will go up, esp among the leading lights of the ID movement? A lot? some? almost none? Is Mike in a lonely little corner all by himself? You're up now, and the ball is coming in belt high. It's time to swing. Can you hit it?Ted Davis_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Charlie-- You asked me, "So what is it that allows Barb Forrest et al to testify that theistic evolutionist Michael Behe is a creationist and that theistic evolutionist Ken Miller is not?" If I may speak bluntly: b/c the defense attorneys didn't ask someone like me, who knows a lot more than Forrest about the history of the origins controversy, to show them how to blow her out of the water in cross examination (on that particular point). Just as they didn't take my advice *NOT* to argue that ID is science, but instead to argue that aspects of ID could be discussed by public school science teachers as part of a unit on the philosophy of science. IMO that was their only *potentially* winning hand, in terms of preventing the judge from making a larger ruling against ID generally, rather than just a narrower ruling against the quite illegal activities of the Dover school board. But, to be equally honest, Charlie, even if the folks at TDI had decided to play ball with the defense (and most decidedly they did not decide to do that), I very much doubt that my opinions would have ended up in the witness stand. You can probably see why from the paragraph above. Nice question, Charlie. My best to you.Ted Davis_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, You are paying us a disservice. You are one of the most learned persons on this site so you have an obligation not to go. You are letting us down. I don't agree with every point of view you take but I have learned a lot pouring through your posts. Stay around. Dave may be bored but the most of us are not.jerry_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Let me make a comment on what I consider the absurdity of saying that God operated through quantum mechanics to produce the changes necessary in the genome for natural selection to operate on. If God did it gradually through quantum uncertainty then He left no evidence. That is the basic contention by ID that there is no evidence. There is no evidence of gradualism in the fossil record leading to macro evolution or in any other area of current world. So God left no evidence of gradualism which is what I understand the appeal of quantum uncertainty is about. Sure God could have used quantum uncertainty to create massive amounts of change in a genome to then be acted on by natural selection. This is consistent with the evidence. But why do it this way. Do we have any evidence from anything else that this is how God operates. Certainly miracles of healing or intervention into one's life could be accomplished this way but do we have any evidence that this is how God operates/d rather than some direct intervention to change a specific condition. And why is one way more satisfying of our view of God than the other? Is quantum intervention anymore appealing of God than a more direct intervention? Maybe this would make a separate thread in which Ted Davis and other TE's could participate so we can understand their reasoning. By the way does this classify as theology?jerry_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis, you said "If I were to ask for a show of hands, starting from the top down, how many folks here and elsewhere in the ID camp would agree with Behe’s view that common descent is a virtual slam dunk?" I for one will not raise my hand mainly because I have never seen evidence for it. I believe very strongly in what I call limited common descent and all the evidence I have seen to support common descent such as pseudogenes, SINE's and LINE's retroviruses etc. only connect limited lines or organisms. Thus to take this very limited but convincing information and extrapolate backwards is to do what Darwin did which was also logically wrong. He saw a descent of a few species (not an upward trend of a tree) and then argued the other way. He said that this descent or devolution somehow translated into a pathway back to the simplest organism. In my opinion that is what is being done by those who conclude universal common descent. It is a faith based conclusion and not supported by empirical data. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, most of us would be willing to hear it. Behe has provided no evidence to support common descent and he is one of massive amounts of evidence. Behe too has made a faith based conclusion and as much as I admire him, I have to part company here. Now I am a lowly commoner but even a commoner can say "Show me the money." So far I haven't seen any money, only promises.jerry_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

I will miss KF. Dittos to StephenB.tribune7_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

I, too, am sorry to see kairosfocus go, but I think he can keep his promise to Dave without holding himself to that same promise with other administrators. That is what I recommend. That way, everyone will be happy.StephenB_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Chalie I don't see it as chasing KF off. I see it as encouraging him to follow through on the promise he made some time ago. The last I want to be seen as, you understand, is an enabler of broken promises. DaveScot_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Kairofocus, Sorry (again) to see you go. DaveScot, While I've always expressed my gratitude for your hard work here I am sorry to have to lodge my dissatisfaction with your raising challenges against UD's friends and then chasing them off for offering and supporting their rebuttals. Keeping the playground clear for ID proponents to discuss issues in a relatively congenial environment is one thing - purging it is another. I know my opinion couldn't be less significant, but here you have it.Charlie_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Ted (cont'd) To clarify my perspective a bit more for you. I sit outside this debate from a theistic perspective. As far as I'm concerned the trail of evidence for Biological ID ends abruptly, at best, about half a billion years after the earth cooled down from a molten glob of stone & metal. As far as I'm concerned the narrative past that point might be a series of one intelligence begetting another where none of said intelligences needs to rise anywhere near the level of a creator of universes. From the earth's formation backward to the formation of the universe itself is a black hole making a giant sucking sound as it pulls empirical data out of view (pardon me, Ross Perot). Then along comes Cosmological ID after the huge gap. There I need either a creator of universes or force myself to swallow the absurd business of an infinite multiverse. I'm going with what's behind door #1 but the power to create a whole universe is like so beyond my understanding there's little to nothing in the way of further characterization I can make or even imagine about the nature of that intelligent agency. I sure don't want to piss it off though so I'm inclined to take up Pascal's Wager just to hedge my bets and even if it turns out to be a bust I like living in a western democracy amongst mostly moderate descendants of the Protestant Reformists. That's a winning formula in my opinion and I say if it ain't broke there's no need to fix it. So anyhow, from my detached point of view your camp and Bill's camp have far more in common than you have differences. You guys should embrace what you have in common and put aside the differences. It works for me. I even learned to get along with the YEC group and I'm here to tell you that wasn't easy for me but it was doable by focusing on commonalities instead of differences. DaveScot_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Hi Ted Davis, Something about your last comment bothers me. You admit that Theistic Evolutionists can admit that SCIENCE demonstrates the necessity of guidance in the history of the universe. William Dembski:
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence
I have always thought this was exactly where TEs drew the line and separated themselves from ID - the claim that science itself demonstrates this purpose. When I first started discussing evolution I presumed everybody arguing against ID was an atheist as it didn't even occur to me that a theistic evolutionist would argue against the claim that nature actually exhibits signs of the design that he says is there. Ken Miller has offered that he and Behe share the exact same view of the history of the earth, common descent, human ancestry, the fossil record, etc. So what is it that allows Barb Forrest et al to testify that theistic evolutionist Michael Behe is a creationist and that theistic evolutionist Ken Miller is not? Only Behe's claim that science provides the evidence of the necessary design. This blog has often said (as I think has CSC) that, according to his stated position, IDists would consider Ken Miller an IDist as far as cosmological evidence goes. With your asking for a show of hands you demonstrate something else, however. Although you seem to be comfortable with the criterion by which an IDist would deem you a proponent, insofar as you see that science warrants the inference to design, you do not draw your line there. Regardless of whether the science of ID demonstrates the evidence of purpose in nature to the satisfaction of both common descent old agers and special creation young earthers you hint that your problem with ID is not with the science after all. If we all see the design, if the scientific arguments can bear their own weight, why ought it matter how many people raise their hands? Would you dispute your dentist's ability to extract your impacted wisdom tooth just because he was also a young earth creationist and didn't believe it was a vestige of our evolution? Then you ought not reject the design inference just because young earthers like it as do TEs like Michael Behe. If you get your show of hands I believe you'll be surprised, by the way.Charlie_{August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Ted re; Mike Behe is separated by fewer than two degrees from Theistic Evolutionists. I agree. I've always argued that Theistic Evolutionists are IDists who just won't admit it because of the abuse they'd suffer at the hands of Atheist Evolutionists who dominate the academy. If I may mangle a line from Einstein, I view the TE position as essentially God doesn't play at dice with the course of evolution. I understand the basis for the fear all too well. I know scores of scientists from many disciplines, many of them biologists, who only dare voice their support for ID in secret amongst trusted colleagues. God help the young and untenured if they're found out. Even those far removed from biology like astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez aren't safe from the evolution storm troopers. Oops. Made a Nazi reference and I just promised myself a few hours ago I was going to drop out of that particular internecine ~~squabble~~ ~~catfight~~ disagreement. Shame on me. DaveScot_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

KF re; farewell Again? ~~Tell~~ Show me you really mean it this time.DaveScot_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply