November Apologetics Conference — We need more than good arguments

_{William Dembski

September 21, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Announcement immediately below plus my commentary afterward:

The Nation’s Leading Christian Apologists to Speak
at The National Conference on Christian Apologetics,
November 7th and 8th in North Carolina

Contact: Deborah Hamilton, 215-815-7716

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, Sept. 10 /Christian Newswire/ — The nation’s leading Christian apologists will speak at Hickory Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC on November 7th and 8th to present The National Conference on Christian Apologetics, presented by the Southern Evangelical Seminary. The theme of this year’s conference is, “A Summit On Defense of the Biblical Worldview.” Plenary and elective sessions will provide solid apologetics content, touching on how the Christian worldview relates to the home, the church, and the culture.

This year’s keynote speaker will be Dr. James Dobson. Other speakers include Chuck Colson of Breakpoint and Prison Fellowship Ministries; Josh McDowell, radio host, author and evangelist; Lee Strobel, journalist and best-selling author; Dinesh D’Souza, author and former senior policy analyst during the Reagan administration; Dr. David Noebel, worldview expert and founder of Summit Ministries; Del Tackett, leader of Focus On the Family’s “The Truth Project”; Erwin Lutzer, best-selling author and pastor of Chicago’s historic Moody Church; William Dembski, author, scholar, educator and expert on intelligent design and many others.

MORE

It’s nice to be in such distinguished company as indicated in this press release. I’ll certainly make my usual ID arguments. But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

**Remember how computers were going to become more intelligent than us and that we would be luck if they deigned to keep us as pets?
**Remember how humans were the third chimpanzee, only to find that some dogs and birds are smarter than chimps at various tasks?
**Remember how it was only a matter of time before the Miller-Urey experiment could be extended to explain the origin of life? (For the sheer hopelessness of OOL research, see my forthcoming book with Jonathan Wells, due out next month — How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not).)

The list of vapid materialist promises that show no sign of ever being fulfilled keeps growing and growing. But losing the intellectual battle no longer matters to materialists. Hence Richard Dawkins has no problem endorsing THE GOD WHO WASN’T THERE, a movie that denies Jesus even existed. Imagine what you want to be true and then enforce its acceptance — that’s the “new scholarship.”

It should have been obvious that Marxist economics did not work, but the Marxists took over dozens of countries after, not before, the famines of the twenties and thirties. And ran those countries with an iron hand until the mid-eighties. Yes, we still need good arguments for the faith. But we also need to pay attention to the rapid growth of liberal fascism (check out Jonah Goldberg’s book on the topic here).

There’s an old New Yorker cartoon that shows a client seated across from his attorney. The attorney remarks, “You’ve got a great case Mr. Smith. Now, how much justice can you afford?” We’ve made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

Comments

Dr. Dembski: I just returned from the National Apologetics Conference. I wanted to thank you for mentioning it as it was the catalyst for 3 families to fly down from Toronto with our teenage kids to attend the conference. I attended both your sessions and enjoyed both of them. Several of us were disappointed that the second one was cut short and wished you had more time. Our kids enjoyed it and were challenged and strengthened in their faith. Thanks again – Paul.SingaporeSling_{November 9, 2008
November
11
Nov
9
09
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, You have correctly noted a very important distinction within young earth creationism. There are those who believe that God made it look old, and therefore that scientific evidence for great age, even if 100%, is a deception sent from God. I personally have theological difficulty with this position. There are others, which are sometimes called scientific creationists, who believe that one should play by the rules of science, at least except for the requirement made by many scientists that God cannot intervene in nature, and that when we do, eventually we will discover that the evidence points to a short age. I am much more comfortable with this approach. Scientific creationists can be argued with. Sometimes they (we) let their prejudices get the better of them (a common failing among scientists). But in principle, at least, they can be argued with, and thank you for defending us against BarryA in that regard (I like BarryA; I just think he is partly wrong here). I will tty to point out another subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) set of differences within the ranks of what are commonly (but slightly inaccurately) called YEC's. Some believe the entire universe was created a few thousand years ago. These are most properly called young universe creationists (sometimes YUC's). Some believe that only the earth, or only the solar system were included during creation week. These would be YEC's but not YUC's. And some believe that only the surface and atmosphere of the earth were remodeled during creation week. These might be called young life on earth creationists, or YLEC's or sometimes YLC's. All of them believe that the Phanerozoic strata are only a few thousand years old, and are at least theoretically vulnerable to evidence of an old age for geologic strata. But only YUC's are troubled by an old age for galaxies. I personally have migrated from being a YLEC to being a YEC. I still see the scientific evidence for a young universe to be very weak, and the evidence for an old universe to be very strong, and so, while I am open to YUC arguments, I presently do not believe in YUC. So when you point out (91) the evidence of colliding galaxies, I agree with you. It is one of the reasons why I am not YUC. Unless and until there is a theory about, for example, the decreasing speed of light that can make correct predictions about physical phenomena that are not expected from more standard models, I am prepared to live with the more standard models. Some of your other examples deal more directly with the age of life on earth, although here the arguments are somewhat weaker. Specifically, there is a reasonable explanation of ice cores from a short-age perspective. Layers in salt mines may not (probably do not) correlate with yearly intervals. Continental drift may have been more rapid in the past than it is now. Arguments regarding the cooling rate of the earth assume (a) that this information is relevant to the age of life on earth, and (b) that the earth started out as originally molten, neither of which assumptions would be valid from a short-age perspective. However, to be perfectly fair, with my present knowledge your argument regarding the salt mine layers has some weight, as do your arguments from atolls. I do see them partly counterbalanced by such things as evidence from the erosion of mountains, for example Everest, that we discussed before, by paraconformities, and also by the fact that material up to supposedly 350 million years old still usually has detectable traces of carbon-14, which has a half-life of only 5,730 years. Those, especially the latter two, seem to me to be pretty powerful arguments for a short age at least for life on earth. I offer that more in a spirit of learning from each other than from dogmatism. I can actually be taught. Finally, while we may at present disagree in our assessment of where the truth probably lies, we may still agree that the universe shows, and features within the universe show, highly probable evidences of design, and may unite on that. In the meantime our agreement on this principle should not be interpreted as unanimity on "creationism", and I will be happy to point that out to those who try to charge you with being a "creationist".Paul Giem_{September 28, 2008
September
09
Sep
28
28
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Barry I think we are conflating two things that aren't necessarily the same - young earth creationism and scientific creationism. Scientific creationism doesn't argue that God made it look old. They argue that mainstream science has it all wrong and they detail how and why. They play by rules of science but the hypotheses they concoct are possible but unlikely taken one at a time and taken as a whole become ridiculous. On the other hand someone who says God created the universe in place with the appearance of age aren't making a scientific argument, they're just pointing out that it's possible without offering any evidence or justification other than revelation. I won't argue the latter but arguing the former can be productive as everyone stands to learn a bit from the other. Scientific creationists who I know put a lot of earnest effort into their explanations. I think it's a futile undertaking but I respect the earnest effort and willingness to engage science on its own terms in the effort.DaveScot_{September 28, 2008
September
09
Sep
28
28
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

In other words, why appeal to evidence when even if the evidence goes 100% in one direction the person with whom you are arguing would nevertheless conclude the opposite. Is that not the very definition of futility?BarryA_{September 28, 2008
September
09
Sep
28
28
2008
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, I agree that God did a perfect job of making the universe appear to be very old, and that is my point. I can see no purpose in arguing with people who deny this fact or try to explain it away.BarryA_{September 28, 2008
September
09
Sep
28
28
2008
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Barry I don't have a problem with in-place creation of a world that merely looks old. Anything is possible for an omnipotent creator. God could have set up the stage then put the players on it of course. The problem I have is when people think they've found flaws in the props that reveal it's just staged to look old. The depth and breadth of contrived hypotheses explaining away the myriad contrary observations are collectively ludicrous. If God wanted the universe to have a consistent appearance of being very old He did a perfect job of it. One shouldn't expect any less than perfection. It seems rather a dimunition of omnipotence to suggest otherwise. DaveScot_{September 28, 2008
September
09
Sep
28
28
2008
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, trying to prove that the universe/earth is old to a YEC by pointing to the overwhelming evidence is a thankless task. Everyone, everywhere understands that the evidence points to a universe/earth that are millions if not billions of years old. The YEC's have an answer to all of that: 6,000 years ago God created the universe/earth with the "appearance" of great age. Now here's the kicker. God, being God, can create a universe that appears to us to have great age if He wants to. Thus, this YEC argument cannot be refuted in principle. I do not see how the two sides on this will ever come together and, therefore, the point of discussing it.BarryA_{September 28, 2008
September
09
Sep
28
28
2008
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem The best positive evidence of either an old universe is a Hubble photograph of a large galaxy that was hit by a smaller galaxy. It sent out a shockwave like a pebble hitting a puddle. The speed of the shockwave is easily calculated and so is the diameter within small enough margin of error to yield a time interval from initial impact to current diameter of the shockwave - a hundred million years. Plus the galaxy itself is millions of lightyears distant so we couldn't even see that galaxy if there hadn't been hundreds of millinos of years for the light to get here. It isn't that there's just one bit of evidence like this pointing to an old earth, there are a million layers of annual snow deposition in arctic ice cores, there are a million layers of salt deposition in a US saltmine near the great lakes. Speed of continental drift is easily measured and there's no doubt S.America and Africa were once a single continent and they took millions of years to drift apart where they are today. The earth's beginning is well enough modeled that we know it was molten and had to cool down for tens of millions of years before liquid water could exist. The list of things congruent with an old earth are truly legion and come from virtually every natural science.DaveScot_{September 27, 2008
September
09
Sep
27
27
2008
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, (87) Thanks. I still have some questions about the comparative rapidity of erosion of shield and cinder cone volcanoes, and suspect that catastrophic processes can erode faster than normal processes, but should not comment further on this without specific information about the composition and geography of the various islands. Your reference has given me some food for thought. jerry, (89) Your proposal is a reasonable one. It may be a little long, and you may wish to shorten it. I wish it would help, and if it did I would be delighted. However, as I noted, experience suggests that it will be ignored.Paul Giem_{September 27, 2008
September
09
Sep
27
27
2008
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Well I disagree and I do not look at people as adversaries but just people who do not understand who we are. So I have modified the introductory document and readily admit it could use a lot of help from a good writer and some critical analysis from others. What is wrong and what should be added are some of the critical comments I am looking for. I may end of as the lone ranger on this but I believe something similar is necessary for ID in order to explain itself to the uninformed masses and the people at Panda's Thumb and many as ASA are not the target. It is the people I meet every day who are well educated and know nothing about ID except what is said in the press that are my target. If in the process scientists learn more about what ID is really about, it precludes them from making wrong assertions without the opportunity to show them they are misleading. Here is a rewrite of my points given Paul's comments The core belief that defines ID is that there is evidence for some kind of intelligence that is capable of creating and instantiating design in the physical universe, based on the similarity of certain features of nature to known designed artifacts and processes and the absence of any reasonable model of their occurrence by non-designed processes. ID does not insist that any investigation must stop looking for non-designed processes as causes only that intelligent input be a possible inference. We believe that in certain cases it is the best inference but that this may be superseded by future findings. This core principle is compatible with a wide variety of other beliefs and some of these belief systems have adopted this core principle as an essential element of their belief system. This does not mean that ID endorses these belief systems. Just as capitalism and socialism both espouse certain common engineering principles, different belief systems have adopted intelligent design principles. ID as a science accepts only good science and insists that only good science be considered when addressing scientific issues: Relevant to evolution which is the topic here, ID accepts that The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years. The necessary ingredients for life were created by cosmological processes that slowly produced the various higher order elements over the last 8-10 billion years. Life on earth began about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. Evolution which is the arrival of new and distinct species as evidenced by the fossil record as well as minor modifications of current species has happened over the last 3.5 million years and there are periods when this phenomena of new specie origins has been rapid and times when it has been slow. The fact of evolution does not imply any mechanism or rationale for the appearance of any new species. Life has progressed since 3.5 billion years ago showing a pattern to species of greater complexity sometimes with great changes happening in relatively short time periods such as 5-10 million years and sometimes with few changes over much longer periods of time. The number of cell types of animals has been increasing since the origin of multi-cellular organisms about 800 million years ago with over two hundred cell types currently in many living mammals. Along with this increase in cell types there has been an increase in complexity of the functions which the organisms can accomplish. The driving force for most of the diversity of life on the planet seems to be due to Darwinian processes. Darwin's original ideas have been considerably changed since Darwin’s time but the theory today generally hypothesizes that the appearance of new minor variation in species is driven by environmental factors but modified by a whole host of genetic and epigenetic processes that tend to produce gradual changes in species over time. However, this process has never been to shown to be able to produce new complex functional capabilities but only minor changes probably creating at best a new genera. We remain skeptical of its ability to completely explain what Ernst Mayr called megaevolution. However, the mechanism by which new variation appears in the populations of the species on the earth that lead to new complex functional capabilities is at this time mostly unknown. We recognize that there is much speculation on this topic but at present all that is available is mainly speculation. While the traditional Darwinian processes can very often explain changes once these complex functional capabilities arrives, it cannot explain the origin of capabilities. In other words using an old saying, “Darwinian processes can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.” The concept of common descent or universal common descent is not a given but may have happened. It is not an essential part of evolutionary biology but a possible conclusion from the evidence which is still to be debated. ID does not dispute the analysis that many species with common genomic elements probably resulted from these species having a common ancestor and that most of differences of these species are due to micro evolutionary processes. This is an area of debate to be resolved through future research. Thus, the evolutionary debate is mainly about the mechanism for the development of new complex functional capabilities and secondarily about how fast some of these complex functional capabilities can permeate a population once they arrive. The resort to “deep time” as an explanation is not a valid scientific concept and used mainly to cover up inadequacies of the current evolutionary paradigm. It is also grossly inappropriate to argue that we are “creationists” without further defining that term. We are not young earth creationists though we are aware that many young earth creationists often use intelligent design to justify their beliefs just as socialists and capitalists use efficiency arguments to justify their distribution systems. There are fundamental differences between us, and specifically arguments that are dependent on a young age creationist reading of the book of Genesis or a young age of the earth are irrelevant for our position and should be recognized as such. We are not experts on young earth creationism nor the bible and because of this no questions about religious beliefs should be asked because we in reality are not able to answer them correctly. Those who espouse intelligent design are of various religious and non religious backgrounds.jerry_{September 27, 2008
September
09
Sep
27
27
2008
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Paul, for whatever it is worth, I could sign on to @86 without hesitation. Of course, you know my position, which you also probably agree with. I don't think we should be justifying ourselves to our adversaries, because I don't think that we need justifying. It is their sensibilities that should be on trial, not ours.StephenB_{September 27, 2008
September
09
Sep
27
27
2008
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem http://www.hawaiianatolls.org/teachers/lesson_life_of_an_island.phpDaveScot_{September 27, 2008
September
09
Sep
27
27
2008
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Jerry (and StephenB), Let me try my hand at a suggested disclaimer. _____________ The core belief that defines ID is that there is evidence for some kind of intelligence that is capable of creating and instantiating design in the physical universe, based on the similarity of certain features of nature to known designed artifacts and the absence of any reasonable model of their occurrence by non-designed processes. While this core principle is compatible with a wide variety of other beliefs, from young earth creationism to old earth creationism to God-guided evolution to agnosticism, and keeping in mind that science is fallible and must be recognized as such, I/our group [name group here] believe in an age of the universe of some 14 billion years, an age of the earth of around 4.6 billion years, and an age of life on earth of about 3.8 billion years, and accepts the standard geologic time scale as essentially accurate. We also believe that there is a significant role for evolution, both in terms of change over time in the kinds of organisms found in the fossil record, and in terms of natural variations and random variation being responsible for both microevolution and speciation. We remain skeptical of its ability to completely explain what Ernst Mayr called megaevolution. It is therefore grossly inappropriate to argue that I am/we are "creationists" without further defining that term, as both I/we and young earth creationists recognize that there are fundamental differences between us, and specifically arguments that are dependent on a young age creationist reading of the book of Genesis or a young age of the earth are invalid against my/our position and should be recognized as such. [Some may wish to go further and disclaim Biblical inerrancy, or disclaim a fundamental role for the Bible in determining, or testing, scientific theories, or explicitly accept common descent, as long as that descent does not exclude designed modification.] _________ I think that both you, jerry, and StephenB could sign on to the above. If so, I would encourage you to do so. However, I share StephenB's skepticism as to its effect, given how ineffective a much longer disclaimer has been for Behe.Paul Giem_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, (59) You mention the erosion of the Hawaiian Islands as an argument for the standard geologic time scale. I guess I am missing your point. Could you outline your argument briefly, or point me to a source (or both)? I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate forum, but my research in carbon-14 dating appears to suggest a date for life on earth in the range of thousands of years. If so, perhaps God has left us some clues that the age of the earth is closer to the Biblical picture than to the standard geologic one.Paul Giem_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Jerry, we can revisit this discussion again after Timeuas makes his case and we get a chance to observe the reaction of his ASA audience.StephenB_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

First they came for the YECs, and I did not speak out because I was not a Creationist. Then they came for the IDists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Design Theorist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.StephenA_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I am not sure what you would propose. In other words I am confused except that you do not like my specifics. My specifics may be poorly stated for example maybe it should read "ID has not problem with an earth that is 4.5 billion years old and a universe that is approximately 13 billion years old" or "ID has no problem with common descent" and similarly. As for the rest of your comment, I am not sure what you would mean or are getting at. I actually don't think I said anything that gives away anything of consequence. I have just stated some conclusions that are generally accepted by most in the world and are not antithetical to ID. When one does, they should never come up in the discussion. I am not sure what the main point is that my list is distracting from. From my point of view it is getting out of the way distractions that never let ID get to any point because it is always on the defensive. Just look at the Fuller presentation for one fantastic example. There are other examples I can point to. In fact I have never heard a good debate from the ID stand point. There is always too much irrelevant discussions going on. I am sure there are some but even in the stand alone presentations where the presenter has complete control of the discussion in the question and answer parts I have often seen the presenter go on the defensive immediately with things that my list would get rid of. Look at some of the inane examples the people at ASA come up with in reply to Timaeus' defense of ID. He has done a good job of diffusing much of the standard distractions. The comments indicate how uninformed some of them are. But they also serve to inform someone like Timaeus in his next essay what to get out of the way so even these inappropriate comments are not broached. Maybe you want to hone in on atheistic materialism and so do I but I believe the best way to do that is to never mention it and leave the listeners, who are not Darwinists, with the necessary information to come to their own conclusions. Too many people here assume the audience are Darwinists and I view them as distractions. My list has evolved over time from reading other comments and I have just learned a lot from reading Timaeus. So may others who just lurk here and may not be interested in getting involved in the conversation but just want reassurance in their own beliefs. Especially those who have the idea that ID is another form of creationism. They certainly will not get that from what I say yet I defend ID as much as anyone on this site.jerry_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

"We need more than good arguments" is how this thread began---and I totally agree. The materialists would like us to get bogged down in endless debate which they love to obfuscate and appeal to their authority. The arguments have been made---they're out there---those with any curiosity and a bit of courage will look into it. Academics are notorious for their lack of courage---how many stood up to the Nazis, for example? It was pretty much only religious people who did that---not academics. So let's don't drive away political allies---even if we don't agree on everything.Rude_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

jerry said (#71) --
you said,”The Darwinists consider YEC to be ID’s “partner” whether ID proponents like it or not. That is why the Darwinists are always calling ID “ID creationism.”"
Yes, they will continue to do so and they will be right to a considerable degree. Just read this thread. They are part of the ID movement and are welcomed by ID as part of the big tent strategy. The ID movement is the ID theorists and the YEC’s walking hand in hand against atheistic materialism. Unfortunately this alliance inhibits others from joining in this particular effort. ID has one of the strongest weapons against atheistic materialism there is and it is being weakened by a flawed alliance.
There is no "flawed alliance." Darwinists' linkage of YEC to ID has nothing to do with anything that ID'ers or YEC'ers do or don't do. The Darwinists make this linkage for two reasons: (1) to generally try to discredit ID and (2) so they can use the Constitution's establishment clause to attack ID in the courts.Larry Fafarman_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

----Jerry: "Suppose all ID discussions started with the following points:" -----"The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is approximately 13 billion years" ----"Life on earth began about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago................continued @76....................., I, for one, would be uncomfortable with a manifesto- like presentation because it gives away too much ground and would distract from the main point. As a tribute to the truly ignorant, however, I would be open to a quick disclaimer as long as it is subordinated to the main ID definition, which should not be tweaked in order to appease critics. After describing is mission, the statement might offer a quick note that reads something like this: (Although ID rejects the most radical form of materialistic evolution, it is not anti-evolution as such. It does not rule out common descent, make any affirmation concerning the extent or texture of the evolutionary process, or subscribe to any faith-based approach to science.) None of this should be necessary, however, because ID should have the right to define itself and not to have that definition altered or misrepresented by uninformed or hostile critics. Everything turns on how the problem is defined and diagnosed. You and I define and diagnose the problem differently. That means that one of us would get bad results if one of us was allowed to have his way. —Bad diagnosis, bad decision—bad decision, bad results. In your judgment, most TEs and Darwinists are confused about ID and its associations, causing them question ID arguments. In my judgment, most TEs and Darwinists prefer not to accept ID and use “confusion” as a pretext to avoid facing ID arguments. Therefore, you think that the solution is to de-emphasize our adversaries’ confusion, convince them that WE are not confused, and come to a meeting of the minds. I think the solution is to keep making our case, expose our adversaries’ confusion, and seek out ID prospects from the ranks of the uncommitted. We should worry less about converting intractable ideologues and more about recruiting open-minded onlookers---less about changing minds that have already been made up and more about illuminating minds that are not yet impervious to reason.StephenB_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

"But the ID movement is currently not allowed to take such a tack because of political considerations." But wait a minute!! Can't ID proponents argue any way they want? I always start by distinguishing between Darwinism (the theory) and evolution (the facts). I say that I do not dispute the geologic column, the history of life, the age of the planet---I say that evolution is evidence---evidence for design. If we must publicly excommunicate supporters who might be YECs just to avoid embarrassment (ours or the snobs') I say we lack courage.Rude_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

There is a steady drum beat out there—from friends as well as foes—which would have ID be something bigger than the Big Tent. Rather that let ID be simple design detection, there is also the desire that ID take a stand on other issues, such as, for example, the age of the earth. Some YECs would like to exclude the OEs and some OEs would like to exclude the YECs. But to do that ID would have to be an organization with the power to fix doctrine and implement excommunication. How many want ID to be an organization with such powers? I prefer it the way it is. You can love ID and be an agnostic, a Hindu, a New Ager, even a Democrat if you behave. You are in if you agree that it is OK to look for design in nature—you are out if you don’t agree. You are with ID if you want to be—there is no membership and there are no dues. So why can’t the TEs enter the Big Tent? Well, do they want to? Do they agree that it is OK to look for design in nature? The TE tends to love vast verbiage that says little, but what he does say is two things: 1) God, contrary to Genesis 1:26-28, is so alien that there can be no comparison between human instigated design and Divine Design. 2) Darwinism adequately explains the appearance of design in biological organisms. But ID does not proclaim that the designer is God. Some religious agnostics who reject Darwinism are friends of ID, even if they remain agnostic in regard to design. You can be on death row for murder and if you think it’s OK to look for design in nature you’re in, and you can be Mother Theresa and if you think it’s not OK to look for design in nature your out.Rude_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Suppose all ID discussions started with the following points: ----------- ID accepts good science: The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is approximately 13 billion years Life on earth began about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. Evolution which is the arrival of new and distinct species as well as minor modifications of current species has happened over the last 3.5 million years and there are periods when this phenomena of new specie origins has been rapid and times when it has been slow. It has progressed since 3.5 billion years ago showing a pattern to greater complexity sometimes with great changes happening in relatively short time periods such as 5-10 million years and sometimes with few changes over several million years. The number of cell types of animals has been increasing since the beginning with over two hundred cell types in many living mammals. Along with this increase in cell types there has been an increase in complexity of the functions which the organisms can accomplish. The driving force for most of the diversity of life on the planet seems to be due to Darwinian processes which have been considerably changed since Darwin's time but generally follow a pattern of new minor variation driven by environmental factors but modified by a whole host of genetic and epigenetic processes that tend to produce gradual changes in species over time. However, this process has never been to shown to be able to produce new complex functional capabilities but only minor changes probably creating at best a new genera. However, the mechanism by which new variation appears in the populations of the species on the earth is at this time mostly unknown. There is no known theory that can explain the arrival of new complex functional capabilities in species. Thus, while the traditional Darwinian processes can very often explain changes once this complex functional capabilities arrives, it cannot explain the origin of capabilities. In other words using an old saying, "Darwinian processes can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest." The concept of common descent or uniform common descent is not a given but may have happened. It is not an essential part of evolutionary biology but a possible conclusion from the evidence which is still to be debated. Thus, the evolutionary debate is mainly about the mechanism for the development of new complex functional capabilities and secondarily about how fast some of these complex functional capabilities can permeate a population once they arrive. The resort to "deep time" as an explanation is not a valid scientific concpt and used mainly to cover up inadedquacies of the current evolutionary paradigm. -------------- This certainly can be improved upon but it is a starter and if every ID conversation opened with this or a similar manifesto, all the contrary debate about creationism or anti science would disappear. Now I don't doubt that opponents will still try the old tricks but over time they will get worn out and disappear. But the ID movement is currently not allowed to take such a tack because of political considerations. But hey, I as an individual can take this position. But when I and like minded individuals do, we will be cast aside as not really representing the ID movement.jerry_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPod, Here is the link. It was in my comment #54 above. Here is the appropriate excerpt: The list of ASA for September is http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/ And Timaeus’s post is not posted ,by him but by Ted Davis. Scroll down to the posts by Ted Davis It might be one of the best ever defenses of ID there is. Timaeus is a very bright, well read and good writer. It is long so start with the Ted Davis posts and read them or do as I did and copy them into a word processor to print out. There are lot of funny characters in the text so I used a search and replace to get rid of them. It makes the reading easier.jerry_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

-----Jerry: "As I said the debate would change considerably if ID took a different tack. See my comment #46." Could you be more specific about what you mean by disassociating and taking a different tack.StephenB_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Jerry...can you provide that link again please (I lost it)Upright BiPed_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

One of the best defenses of ID is being made today and in the last few days by Timaeus. He is responding at ASA and Ted Davis is relaying his messages. So if you go there to read what Timaeus is saying, look for the Ted Davis comments and in them you will find Timaeus defense of ID. It is well worth the read. There are several comments by the members of ASA and some are good and some are inane but they are being answered. Thank you Ted Davis for facilitating this.jerry_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Larry Fafarman, you said ""The Darwinists consider YEC to be ID’s “partner” whether ID proponents like it or not. That is why the Darwinists are always calling ID “ID creationism.” Yes, they will continue to do so and they will be right to a considerable degree. Just read this thread. They are part of the ID movement and are welcomed by ID as part of the big tent strategy. The ID movement is the ID theorists and the YEC's walking hand in hand against atheistic materialism. Unfortunately this alliance inhibits others from joining in this particular effort. ID has one of the strongest weapons against atheistic materialism there is and it is being weakened by a flawed alliance. Your point could also be directed at this site in another context. The same thing is done here when authors and contributors conflate TE's with hard core Darwinists. And people here have said some nasty things about TE's in this vein. As I said the debate would change considerably if ID took a different tack. See my comment #46.jerry_{September 26, 2008
September
09
Sep
26
26
2008
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

jerry said (#62) --
If that is true then why does ID tolerate young earth creationism as a partner by ignoring their science and attacking the science of neo Darwinism unless we think young earth creationism is correct about biological and cosmological origins.
The Darwinists consider YEC to be ID's "partner" whether ID proponents like it or not. That is why the Darwinists are always calling ID "ID creationism."Larry Fafarman_{September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Patrick, you said: "Seriously, how do you expect the tools of core ID to even begin to address that question?" If ID cannot address this issue then ID must say that Darwinian processes cannot not be ruled out of consideration as an explanation for most of the life on the plaet. And until that time, ID should accept what is considered most likely by evolutionary biology. Now anyone as an individual can have a different opinion but ID cannot.jerry_{September 25, 2008
September
09
Sep
25
25
2008
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply