Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sean McDowell interviews Bill Dembski on how ID is doing




MCDOWELL: What do you consider some of the greatest successes, and also challenges, in the ID movement?

DEMBSKI Unlike creationism, with which it is often conflated, intelligent design shifts the discussion of biological origins from a religion vs. science controversy to a science vs. science controversy. This is a success, even if ID’s critics continue to try to claim that it is religion in scientific garb.

There are really two strands to ID’s scientific program. There’s the pure information-theoretic side, as represented by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, and then there’s the molecular biology research side, as represented by the Biologic Institute and its journal Bio-Complexity.[ii] We continue to push the research frontiers forward on both sides.

The biggest challenge for us is gathering a talent pool and the funding to accelerate this research program. The incentive structure in the scientific community rewards bashing intelligent design and vilifying its proponents. If you doubt this, see Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

MCDOWELL: As a whole, how would you assess the reception of ID within the church?

DEMBSKI: I would say that the church broadly and even the evangelical community has — on balance — been somewhere between useless and downright counterproductive to the success of ID. I know this may sound strange, but note my qualification: on balance. Of course, a crucial nucleus of support for ID has come largely from the church and especially evangelical Christians. But that nucleus is small. By contrast, the opposition to ID in the church is large. More.

See also: GoodReads quotes from Dembski’s Being as Communion

Rupert Sheldrake likes Dembski’s Being as Communion

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Unbelievable? Live! in California: Ryan Bell & Sean McDowell on ‘Why I am an atheist / Why I am a Christian’ Saturday 10th September 2016 - 02:30 pm http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Live!-in-California-Ryan-Bell-Sean-McDowell-on-Why-I-am-an-atheist-Why-I-am-a-Christian Justin presents a live audience edition of the show from Church Everyday in Northridge, California. He’s joined by atheist Ryan Bell, a former Christian pastor who took ‘A Year Without God’ after coming to doubt his faith, and Sean McDowell a Christian thinker who tells his own journey of doubt and coming to a conviction that Christianity is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8HnbIFk&feature=youtu.be bornagain77
'Never is a long time'. That's sure cutting a long story, short, Denyse ! And there was I musing on a discursive invocation of the Parousia. Axel
rvb8 @19: “No! I don’t hate God, or indeed the ID position (hardly a movement, when it is largely restricted to one country, and losing ground there too). ... I see no point in hating that which is not there...” ___________________________________________________________________ Thanks rvb8 for your comments, though I feel you could not resist a swipe at ID. Still, I thought your reply measured and reasonable. Yet, in one sense, you have made nature a God; ‘evolution produced the cosmos and every life form.’ Surely, you help to create the golden calf of evolutionism; on one rump you have stuck Darwin, and on the other rump, stuck the Big Bang, while offering it shredded scripture. Is that not your God substitute; a world belief system? Fair enough. A problem is, Christians do similar. Still, your belief must take account of the fact, you cannot possibly prove experimentally, in their major pillars, either the Big Bang Theory or that from non-life a life cell first arose, complete with a cell membrane, coded parts and membrane pumps to remove and intake material. You cannot experimentally show, that from a theoretical and mathematical constructed chance linear explosion when everything was as hot as hell, and shrunk into no-space; things start to change course into circumferential laws of motion, from which to evolve the cosmos over 13.7 billion years. It seems you believe evolutionism has the role of a natural power which has turned worms into men and women, and made monkeys out of humans (sorry, the other way around). Surely, to be totally fit, a fit life form should be fit enough to remain fit for all time; allowing for variation. To what avail Darwinian type fitness? Work, work, evolve, evolve, and still at the end death. In total, produced and evolved is death for all life forms. You do not know where you came from, (I mean you cannot test your belief experimentally, that is why it remains a belief); you do not know where you will exactly end, and where you are on the evolutionary thread. What is certain, a lack of fitness will result in death for all life forms. Of course, Darwinian theistic evolutionism, or progressive creationism jumps the gap into eternity and billions of years by accommodating some tenants of the Big Bang Theory. However, “The churches are in deep trouble.” The projected end of Christianity in Britain is 2067 according to the Spectator (2015) through statistics extrapolated from the National Census of 2001 and 2011. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/ The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey warned, the Church of England is “one generation away from extinction.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/church-of-england-one-generation-away-from-extinction-after-dramatic-loss-of-followers-10288179.html Why: surely, when Christians teach and preach evolutionism, they also worship it as a gold calf, against the clear words of the God of Sinai. Yet, Bill Dembski says: “The Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky is a case in point. What an embarrassment and waste of money. I’ve recently addressed the fundamentalism that I hold responsible for this sorry state of affairs.” Indeed, what a sorry state of affairs, not believing the God of Sinai, who was crucified keeping divine law because we could not, nor believe in the power of the Almighty or the clear words of scripture! Jesus is “responsible” for preaching the world-wide flood happened! What a sorry God! Christians are intellectually crucifying Christ. For heaven’s sake, at least stick up for what scripture and the Judaeo-Christian God clearly teaches; there was no evolution. True science must take account of such, being that Jesus said he is the “truth” as is the Father. Further, what an embarrassing inspired story the first chapters of the Bible; and the flood embarrassingly confirmed by God/Jesus, as the “truth.” What then an embarrassment the teaching of God, leader of Christianity? We are in danger of casting ourselves out of the kingdom of heaven. At least rvb8, my God is not an embarrassment to me. Sadly, for too many Christians, the God of Sinai is an embarrassment. That is why, in Great Britain, Christianity will appear almost dead in 2067. That is why ID appears to be struggling to take hold in churches because of the world-wide domination of evolutionism which holds sway through the “errors” of Russia. Ironically, exported from Down House, England. That is why, in my opinion, notwithstanding its merits, ID will diminish or struggle when set against or with any form of evolutionism embedded: it has made itself luke-warm to scripture, that is to the direct Testimony of God given in divine law. As for Dembski’s remark: “I would say we see a comparable failure with the ideologies of naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, and young-earth creationism.” Then I would say, it follows, Jesus is made a comparable failure with the Father, by teaching divine law, that he created in six days. Jesus being the God of Sinai. More faith, more divine law directed science, and much less evolutionary theory. mw
rvb8: You misquoted me. You have: "the cowardly behaviour of its scientists in trying to discuss maverick ideas.." But I wrote: "the cowardly behavior of its scientists in trying to squash maverick ideas with the non-scientific appeal to 'consensus'" I was referring to the tendency of the anti-ID crowd to say that if you hold to a minority position within science, you should shut up; only the majority position deserves a hearing. "‘it looks designed therefore God’." This is not what ID argues. ID argues: "It looks designed, and also, upon analysis, *is* designed, and we don't need to know who the designer is to *know* that it is designed." It's certainly maverick to argue that formal and/or final cause should be brought back into science, and essentially, ID is arguing that formal and/or final causes are in some cases required for a full explanation of natural phenomena. The establishment resists this. Interestingly, however, the establishment doesn't reject the invocation of formal and/or final causes in some sciences: criminology, archaeology, code-breaking, etc. It allows that in order to understand certain phenomena we must allow intelligent design as at least a possible hypothesis; but when it comes to life, the establishment resolutely refuses to allow design as a possible hypothesis. There is no principled epistemological justification for this inconsistency; but of course, we shouldn't expect one, because the real reason why design hypotheses aren't allowed in the life sciences is metaphysical; the life sciences are dominated by materialists, and design, if real in even one case, brings the entire structure of materialism crashing down. Thus, in order to defend the materialist castle, design must be denied admission to the life sciences, even when by common-sense standards and available evidence it is far and away the best explanation for what is observed. Darwinism was called into existence not because the evidence demanded it, nor because it could explain in mechanical terms how changes in bodily form came about (Darwin knew virtually nothing about the mechanisms of life at the micro-level), but to complete the expulsion of teleology from natural science so that people like Dawkins could be "intellectually fulfilled atheists." Darwin was accepted long before he or any of his disciples had a clue how cells, genes, etc. worked. Normally in science you have to provide a rigorous mechanism along with your hypothesis; in Darwin's case, story-telling substituted for rigorous mechanism for about 70 years -- a delay which can be explained only by the metaphysical (i.e., anti-teleological) appeal of Darwin's conclusions. People believed in Darwin because they wanted to believe in him, and they were willing to give his theory an I.O.U. on the evidential front because they liked it so much. In solid-state physics, organic chemistry, electromagnetic theory, etc. no such I.O.U. would have been accepted. I can't and won't account for Dembski's choices. Each ID proponent made his own decision on whether or not to attend the trial as a witness. I can't read their minds or guess how they weighed the pros and cons. But I suspect that many of them thought that Dover was a bad first case for ID, because the school board was plainly creationist in motivation and that would obscure the distinction between ID and creationism -- the last thing any ID advocate would want to happen. And that's what did happen; the two were conflated, and the plaintiff's lawyers made sure they were conflated. I don't now the lawyers and special witnesses for the plaintiffs slept at nights after that, knowing they had willingly misrepresented ID as creationism in order to win their case. (Well, actually I do know exactly how they slept at nights, but in order to avoid descending into ad hominem statements -- true statements, but still ad hominem ones -- I will refrain, and stop here.) Timaeus
"Further to Flood embarrassments" Adding to that, I think the flood is just as fair an explanation for mass extinction as comets, meteors, or climate change. A flood that size would leave massive sediment deposits and provide ideal conditions for fossilization. I understand the possible conflict with multiple mass extinction events, believe more than one can be rolled into a single global flood and that there are some subsequent. We find soft tissue on some dinosaur remains and are able to carbon date the bones, so I don't think we can confidently date fossils by current accepted methods. bb
Sorry Tim, quite right I do apologize, 'in their entirety' was a bit much. Let's say extensively, and definately all of the plaintif's expert witnesses stuff. But also, more than once a year, as I constantly go back to re-read Forrest and Co and hers, and their magnificent take downs. Oh yeah! 'a lot', heh. Thanks for the pedantism; is that a word?:) "the cowardly behaviour of its scientists in trying to discuss maverick ideas..' Bloody hell! Seriously? What the hell is 'maverick' about, 'it looks designed therefore God'. This idea, the teleological one, is as ancient as mankind, and was far more elequently argued by William Paley, than by Dembski and Behe. You are right however, that it is a sad endictment of the American judicial system. That such a case should even have to be brought to the attention of the Federal judiciary is indeed frightening. I seem to remeber Dembski toasting, 'with a single malt scotch' the appointment of 'a good ol' boy', to hear the case. He got his desired 'day' in court, got his ideal Republican judge, and then flew the coup. He also tried to have his evidence as an 'expert' introduced as testimony in absentia. Jones correctly did not permit this, saying if Dembski wants to give evidence he must present himself for cross examination; why did Dembski refuse this golden opportunity? rvb8
rvb8 wrote: "I read in full, the transcripts of the entire Dover trial, at least once a year. Therefore I have read them eleven times so far." rvb8 apparently has way too much free time on his hands, if can afford to read 2,000 pages of transcripts from an old trial every year. But if has such free time, and is determined to read something over and over again once a year, why doesn't he select something with more worthwhile intellectual contents? For example, why doesn't he read Plato's *Republic* once a year? Or the tragedies of Shakespeare? Or the poems of Homer? Or the *Summa Theologiae* of Thomas Aquinas? Or Locke's *Second Treatise of Government*? Or Darwin's *Origin of Species*? Or gee, maybe even (gasp) the Bible? I myself read the entire Dover trial transcripts through, but just once. They don't merit a re-reading. The trial was almost entirely a show trial, from its planning stages through to the final judgment (in which the science-ignorant, history-ignorant and philosophy/theology-ignorant judge was led like a puppet on a string by the views of the witnesses for the plaintiffs). The guilty verdict against the Board (which was entirely justified, and was the correct part of the judge's ruling) could have been reached in only a few weeks, simply by cutting out all the sessions with Behe, Miller, Pennock, etc. and interviewing only the local people involved; the guilt of the Board parties was clear. But of course the purpose of the trial wasn't merely, or even mainly, to protect the local children or their parents from being exposed to religious teaching in the public schools; for the NCSE, the ACLU, Miller, etc., the main purpose was to make ID *as an account of origins* suffer a public humiliation. Ken Miller is a back-alley fighter who enjoys such polemical confrontations, and he was ably supported, in the courtroom by other intellectual gangsters, and outside of the courtroom by behind-the-scenes thugs at the NCSE, who were on a daily basis spinning the trial for their own ends. That the trial could even happen in America was a disgrace to American society and a sign of how low American culture has sunk. Even reading the transcripts once -- which I thought my duty as an informed citizen -- made me nauseous. I would not read them again, as they represent everything that is wrong with America -- its vulgar populism, its demogoguery, its adversarial system of justice which is not aimed at truth, the cowardly behavior of its scientists in trying to squash maverick ideas with the non-scientific appeal to "consensus", the gross stupidity of its high school science teachers (not one of the teachers interviewed in the trial would ever have been hired at my high school, they were all too stupid, in biology and in science generally), etc. Re-reading the trial transcripts would be like watching the same episodes of Jerry Springer over and over again -- a celebration of American vulgarity and cultural corruption. rvb8 should get his mind on loftier topics than the culture war. But I've found, again and again, that anti-ID writing and "lofty" form a sort of oxymoron. He could also spend some of the time wasted on rereading the sophistical arguments of Ken Miller on the reading of books of English grammar and usage, where he would learn that "a lot" is two words, not one. Timaeus
mw, No! I don't hate God, or indeed the ID position (hardly a movement, when it is largely restricted to one country, and losing ground there too). I see no point in hating that which is not there, that is the same reason why I also don't hate FGM, or, as Dawkins says, 'the great Juju on the mountain'. I am often accused of hating God or Christianity at this site. It's not true. I come here to catch up with the latest 'research', in ID theory; I also visit 'evolutionnews', and read Klinghoffer and Co. Denton, Gauger, Glicksman and Smith are also on this list, I regularly peruse. I also visit 'talkorigins' alot, and many other excellent science resource sites. (I read in full, the transcripts of the entire Dover trial, at least once a year. Therefore I have read them eleven times so far. The prosecution, expert witnesses for the prosecution, and prosecution arguments are devstating to the defense. You should read these documents too!) ID 'theory' hasn't much advanced beyond IC, and Dembski's Design Filter. And although you show several quotes from Mr Ham, I know for a fact, his Creation Museum, and 'Ark Encounter' park, are things the ID community generally view as a hand brake on the progress of their efforts. rvb8
Further to Flood embarrassments: 'thank God it was only local, otherwise it would have been dangerous.' Recall St James of Nisibis. "St. James played a leading role among the 318 Christian leaders present during the sessions of the Council of Nicea, and merited the attention of St. Athanasius and other bishops of the Eastern as well as the Western churches." "St. James is also known for his divine vision on Mount Ararat, where he found the sacred relic of Noah's Ark and brought it to the Armenian people." "The relic of Noah's Ark received by St. James is currently in possession of Holy Etchmiadzin." (The cathedral and mother church of the Armenians) https://www.armenianchurch-ed.net/feasts/st-james-of-nisibis/ Of course, probably just another silly God given relic to deflate evolutionism. mw
RexTugwell #14: "Given the challenges that Christianity faces today, a literal 6 day creation and a global flood are not hills worth dying on. Augustine didn’t think so; neither do I. Having to shoehorn Genesis into scientific observations is indeed embarrassing when scripture was never meant to be a scientific textbook." ___________________________________________________________ Jesus died believing he created and knowing he created in six days, in terms of the Holy Trinity, he said so at Sinai. Jesus died not altering the Ten Commandments. As for Augustine, he believed God created everything instantly. Were do you get your knowledge from? As for shoehorning Genesis into consensus theory, first demonstrate the big bang theory and Darwinism are proved beyond a shadow of experimental doubt. Why, they are not even scientific law. As for God confirming Genesis, he did that at Sinai, the reason, presumable, why you may keep the Saturday Sabbath, a law that Jesus died keeping: to the "tittle." As for Genesis or the Ten Commandments not being scientific, correct. However, they are super-scientific in context. The creation was one miracle over six days. Then natural laws took over. What God produced was a mature universe. Just has Jesus produced, matured best wine out of water. Question, RegTugwell, how old that wine? Indeed, have you produced or tested a miracle, are you an expert in that area of creating? Still, it appears you are not prepared to take God's word for it, that's how he created. Too embarrassing, I see! What is the underlying cause for the Fall, if you believe in such, but pride. As for the Ten Commandments containing something not worth dying for, what then the rest of God's moral teaching? Still, Jesus died keeping them to save us. You make Jesus an embarrassment for upholding the Father's direct communicated words on how we should believe and conduct our life? As for the world wide Flood, Jesus confirmed it. mw
"I don’t know who McDowell is," Sean is the son of Josh McDowell, the well-known Christian apologist who wrote "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." CannuckianYankee
RexTugwell - I agree. I have been a WEC for most of my time as Christian, but after some intense study, I find myself questioning the WEC claims. I think the issue for me is all about "ex nilio" which is the idea that God created everything from nothing at the point of saying "Let there be light." I find that I am thinking maybe raw material was available at that time. As a Christian, I am hoping that ID will be able to prove someday what is the result of intelegence and what is the result of natural forces. An example of this, where ID would be a tremendous benefit is the Yonaguni Monument, where there was much debate about whether or not the monument was man made or not. This example illustrates the scientific necessity to determine the role inteligence plays in the formation of objects we find in our world in addition to the existence of life and things like the water cycle. I am a firm believer that Science and Religion should NEVER be mixed, and this includes the religious nature of some activities of some Atheists and Agnostics. alanbrad
Given the challenges that Christianity faces today, a literal 6 day creation and a global flood are not hills worth dying on. Augustine didn't think so; neither do I. Having to shoehorn Genesis into scientific observations is indeed embarrassing when scripture was never meant to be a scientific textbook. RexTugwell
RexTugwell and Bill Dembski: You both are saying "...they are an embarrassment and more of an obstacle to ID acceptance than are Darwinists." I completely disagree with this statement. ID NEEDS to be divorced from Christianity, and WECs like Ken Ham are promoting Christianity (which is why their tax exemption is justified) and NOT science. So Christians wearing the Holy Spirit are not going to be promoting ID. Period. BUT, they are promoting the reality that life was NOT the result of a happy accident along with ID. So in this respect, ID proponents and WECs (and also non WECs) are all in agreement in this. This is why saying "...they are an embarrassment and more of an obstacle to ID acceptance than are Darwinists." is COMPLETELY wrong. ID proponents, WECs and non-WECs are all in agreement that life is the result of Intelegence, and Darwinists are saying it isn't. I cannot fathom how Bill Dembski et. all could make such a statement. On the other hand I find myself agreeing with everything else he said in the article. alanbrad
Clearly, RegTugwell, the God of Sinai is an embarrassment for stating in stone he created in six days. No wonder atheists reach new heights in numbers and Christians are rocked in uncertainty! Is it because, for some reason, the grace to believe such seems to be in short supply. mw
I'm really surprised to see so much hostility to YECs here. There are more similarities between ID and YEC than there are differences. Many YECs cite ID sources, and there have been IDers citing YEC sources, although not as many. There are a few YECs at the DI ( including Paul Nelson I believe) and IDers and YECs have joint meetings on occassion. If you take all the major arguments made by YECs (excluding religious arguments) you can pretty much line them up precisely with the same argument made by IDers. The only difference is that the ID arguments are usually far more sophisticated - both scientifically and philosophically- than the equivalent YEC argument. REW
Florabama @ 7 Am I missing something? Where in the interview does Dembski say he wants the YECs' money? Don't conflate "support" with "funding". Dembski's opinion of Fundamentalists reflects my own long-held belief that they are an embarrassment and more of an obstacle to ID acceptance than are Darwinists. RexTugwell
rvb8: “Ken Ham loathes the idea of ID.” A comment seemingly full of hate, glee and untruth, when Dembski simply and truthfully said: “opposition to ID in the Church is large.” To my understanding of interactions between AIG, Ken Ham and ID’rs; your comments rvb8, are far from truthful, balanced or accurate. For example, Ken Ham has said: “The ID movement has produced some great research to show the obvious design in living things. But unless they consider all the evidence (which includes the Bible), they will not be able to lead people to a correct understanding of life and the universe.” https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/01/28/is-the-bible-evidence/ AIG: “The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is an informal collaboration dedicated to exposing the problems with naturalistic evolution. As a movement, IDM challenges Darwinian evolution in schools, textbooks, and politics. There are some positive things about IDM but also some things that a Christian should consider carefully.” https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/commentary-on-the-intelligent-design-movement/ Ken Ham also says: “It certainly appears this movement is challenging the evolutionary establishment and stimulating people’s thinking concerning the possibility of a creator responsible for life and the universe. There is no doubt much controversy has been generated and public discussion ensued.” https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/aigs-commentary-on-the-id-intelligent-design-movement/ And see, https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2008/04/01/visit-by-id-author-phillip-johnson/ Of course, the ID movement deliberately does not identify a designer. Nevertheless, “hate;” steady, rvb8. Why should you hate someone (God) whom you make out to be a phantom of belief, with phantom ideas generated, therefore? Is it not a bit like hating boggy-men and ghosts? If unreal, such cannot do you harm. Perhaps it is you who really wants to save the world from such. Nevertheless, it appears you follow in the footsteps of a master, Darwin, who said in a rush of godless knowledge: “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” Nora Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882: with original omissions restored (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), p. 86, quoted from Creation Research, “Evidence Webb.” http://evidenceweb.net/generic_search_results.php?p_SEARCHTYPE=Quote Clearly, rvb8, you are sane, and I must be insane to believe the Testimony of God at Sinai, who said he created in six days, and asked us every seven days, to remember it. He also created worship around that fact. A belief now of course, but at the time, a historic fact documented by an expert witness. An insane God to many, who nevertheless, must judge us with the same standard that he gave out divine law. God help us! Still, you are apparently ok rvb8, he is not there: you know, having rejected truthful historic evidence, as did Darwin—marvellous reasoning. mw
Another victim of the "christians shoot their" own phenomenon. Dr. Dembski is owed a huge debt of gratitude for taking bullets from all sides in this debate. lpadron
“The biggest challenge for us is gathering a talent pool and the funding…” “The Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky is a case in point. What an embarrassment and waste of money.” Ok, so let me see if I understand. You want YECs money but you think they are crazy and are embarrassed to be seen with them? Well, by gollie, Dr Demski, I think we have found the problem. The bill for my consulting fee bill is in the mail. You lament the funding from YECs but you can’t stand them. Now, could it be that YECs have picked up on your distain and have backed away from a movement that they once saw great promise in because they see it as just one more attack on what they believe? If ID is supposed to be science vs science then why the hell are you attacking religion in the name of science? Gosh, where have YECs seen that before? Oh, I remember. From the DarwiNazis. You can’t have it both ways, Doc, and I am glad to see that you have moved on from ID or I would have to rethink the money that this creationist sends to Discovery Institute each month. Florabama
rvb8 -
I don’t know who McDowell is, but it is nice to know William is still somewhere.
I agree. I hope he's doing well in his entrepreneurship. Bob O'H
as to: "the opposition to ID in the church is large.' Which should not be that big of a surprise since Darwinian evolution has always been a religion masquerading as a science. Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, is replete with bad liberal theology. In fact, Charles Darwin’s college degree was not in math, or any other field that would be conducive to establishing a entirely new field of hard science, but his degree was instead based in (bad liberal) theology:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology the Origin of Species – May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Since Darwin's book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the ‘scientific’ clergy shunned it:
“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species Darwin, Kingsley, evolution and racism - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: I recently came across some highly revealing correspondence between the celebrated author and Anglican divine, Charles Kingsley (who was a broad church priest of the Church of England) and Charles Darwin, whom he greatly admired, indicating that Darwin, like Kingsley, looked forward to “the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races” at some stage in the future. In 1862, Darwin wrote: “In 500 years how the Anglo-saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.” Darwin seems to have viewed the extinction of “the lower races” as a great step forward for humanity, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/darwin-kingsley-evolution-and-racism/
To this day, Darwinists are still dependent on bad liberal theology, instead of empirical science, in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of Darwinian claims:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
I don't know who McDowell is, but it is nice to know William is still somewhere. His attack on the Christian community for their luke warm support is eye opening; truly! Does he feel scorned, or mocked, after all Ken Ham loathes the idea of ID, as it butts up against his Ark. The, 'Big Tent', ID had hoped for in its virile youth (circa 1999-2005)has somewhat shrunk! Why? No evidence? No credibility? Has it become 'yesterday's news', News? rvb8
Otangelo Grasso, ID will never be a position held by the majority, or a real status quo shifter . Simply, because if you accept it, you need to accept logically God. Most proponents of evolution do not keep their belief in it, because its rationally the best explanation, and where science leads to, but they are driven by the wish and will of God not to exist. First, they want God out of their lives, and then they do everything to justify their prejudice rationally. Your arguments are acknowledged but not necessarily accepted... I would like to know what drew your attention to a few issues that seem to appear as FACTS in some scientific literature... I'm just curious as to what experimental evidence convinced you to believe that life originated on it's own and how prokaryotic cells became eukaryotic without miracles that science can accept... J-Mac
Never is a long time. News
ID will never be a position held by the majority, or a real status quo shifter . Simply, because if you accept it, you need to accept logically God. Most proponents of evolution do not keep their belief in it, because its rationally the best explanation, and where science leads to, but they are driven by the wish and will of God not to exist. First, they want God out of their lives, and then they do everything to justify their prejudice rationally. Otangelo Grasso

Leave a Reply