Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theistic Evolutionists Close Ranks — Let the Bloodletting Begin!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Theistic evolutionists hold that Darwinian evolution is God’s way of bringing about the diversity of life on earth. They used to be content to criticize ID on scientific grounds. But that’s no longer enough. They are now charging ID with undermining the very fabric of civilization and even the Christian religion itself. Ken Miller’s most recent book, just out, makes this point in the title — Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. From the title, you’d think that Darwin is the Messiah and that until his ideas about evolution gained acceptance, our souls were in jeopardy.

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian (cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these masters he serves more faithfully. A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins’s website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here — the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as “a clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues.” The obvious question this raises is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate) important issues is itself an important issue.

Could it be that the evolutionists’ assault on both science (by perpetuating the fraud that natural selection has unmatched creative powers) and religion (by using evolution as a club to beat people of faith) is undermining America’s soul? Not according to Miller. He’s got other fish to fry. For him, it’s the ID proponents’ assault on evolution that is undermining America’s soul. Forget about Dawkins and his blasphemy challenge. Let’s shaft the ID community.

Francis Collins agrees. His endorsement of Miller’s book leaves no doubt that the ID people are a bigger threat than the atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins:

“In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.” –Francis Collins, Director, the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

With devout believers like this, give me a good infidel any time. Ever since Phil Johnson began publicly voicing his criticisms of Darwinism in the early 90s, his biggest detractors and most vicious critics have been — surprise, surprise — fellow Christians. In fact, we had a Mere Creation conference at Biola University in 1996 rather than at Calvin College (where we had planned to hold it initially) because Howard Van Till was so enraged with Johnson during his visit in the winter of 1996 that he was visibly shaking (Johnson and Niles Eldredge were having a debate at Calvin College — Eldredge turned to Phil after witnessing Van Till’s meltdown and remarked that even though things get heated among fellow evolutionists, it’s nothing like what he witnessed here).

So here’s the deal, everyone. Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this is his view toward ID when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why I didn’t give my permission). They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And they need to be defeated.

What’s our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH. The release date for Miller’s book is June 12th. I’ve got a book titled Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (co-authored with youth speaker and high-school teacher Sean McDowell) whose release date is July 1st. It is geared specifically at mobilizing Christian young people, homeschoolers, and church youth groups with the ID alternative to Darwinian evolution. You might want to compare Francis Collins’ endorsment of Miller’s book with Ann Coulter’s endorsement of mine:

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism…. Liberals respond to critics of their religion like Cotton Mather to Salem’s “witches.” With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design. His record for tackling Darwiniacs is unmatched. This book gives young people all the ammo they need to take on Darwinism and understand the only viable scientific alternative to Darwinism: intelligent design. Every high school student in America needs a copy of Understanding Intelligent Design. –Ann Coulter, BESTSELLING author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin’s theory as God’s mode of creation. But I don’t think they are immoral or un-Christian for holding their views. But ID proponents, for wanting ID to have a place at the table as a scientific alternative to Darwinism, are, according to Miller, Collins, Alexander, etc., immoral, undermining Western civilization, and destroying America’s soul. Well, you want this fight, you’ve got it.

————
*Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

Comments
I will say that, 'science' aside, there's one area I'd like to see more ID effort devoted to: The philosophical and rhetorically persuasive end. I would love for someone to write articles, even a book, at how what we see in biology and evolution clearly indicates (and favors) a view rooted in design rather than an assumption of unguidedness. Then again, maybe I should be the one doing that instead of just complaining from the sidelines.nullasalus
June 15, 2008
June
06
Jun
15
15
2008
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
-----tragicmishap: "Your post disturbs me Bill. This is the exact reason why I personally broke ranks with the creationists, even though I still am one. Your strategy will not work. The creationists tried it already and it has been proven not to work. We all need to stop being so focused on proving how right we are and do something positive. There were lots of scientists before Copernicus who proposed a heliocentric solar system. They all failed because they had no Kepler. And if Kepler had spent his time making propaganda and arguing with the Ptolemaic astronomers, he never would have had the time to make the discovery that ultimately allowed Copernicus to prevail. ID needs a Kepler, not a Goebbels." This argument always comes from our enemies and never from our friends. Basically, it goes something like this: "Why don't you guys stop making the rational case for intelligent design and use the time to create a miracle of some kind. Then everyone will give you some respect." It is a cute trick inasmuch it changes the focus from the fact that [A] ID has been shamelessly slandered even though it has the best arguments to [B] the charge that ID has not yet yielded sufficient practical results to blow away its critics. Obviously, it ignores the fact that Darwinism, the competing idea, has not provided a single benefit for mankind in 150 years. I will take a 15-year-old promise over a 150-year-old failure any day. Even if ID never produces another positive result, it has already challenged the anti-intellectualism of politically correct culture and helped it back on the road to intellectual and mental health. On the other hand, ID will likely offer countless other benefits, all of which will be ignored by the elitists for as long as possible.StephenB
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Junkyard , As far as I know, Dr. Ross, whose paper I referenced, and Dr. Gonzalez, who authored the Privileged Planet, have not directly collaborated on this line of research. While Gonzalez research is first rate and very note worthy (he made many discoveries himself such as the galactic habitable zone), Dr. Ross's work is in more of the hard hitting science variety as far as getting down to the nitty gritty details of the actual numbers.bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Your post disturbs me Bill. This is the exact reason why I personally broke ranks with the creationists, even though I still am one. Your strategy will not work. The creationists tried it already and it has been proven not to work. We all need to stop being so focused on proving how right we are and do something positive. There were lots of scientists before Copernicus who proposed a heliocentric solar system. They all failed because they had no Kepler. And if Kepler had spent his time making propaganda and arguing with the Ptolemaic astronomers, he never would have had the time to make the discovery that ultimately allowed Copernicus to prevail. ID needs a Kepler, not a Goebbels.tragicmishap
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Junkyard, I can just about guarantee you that Dr. Ross has every parameter on that list backed up by a peer reviewed paper in his List of references and/or in his book he wrote on the subject which he also lists on the site I referenced. As for why his exceptional work doesn't doesn't get recognition in the scientific community at large? Did you happen to notice the extremely cold shoulder that Dr. Behe got after his excellent book Edge of Evolution? Junkyard if you haven't noticed there is an extreme bias against anything that may allude to an "Intelligent Designer" in science.bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
ba77: There's no way for me to evaluate that list of 322 items unless some explanation for them are provided. Are these 322 items evaluated in detail in The Privileged Planet (Which, BTW have you read?) Where for example does it explain why X amount of tin is required in the crust of the planet for life to exist there, and that the probability of that amount of tin occurring is .1, and furthermore that such probability is independent of say, the occurence of zinc and potassium, which must also be present in the planet's crust in amounts that have been determined with a great degree of certainity for life to exist there? Where does it do this for the other 319 items in the list? I think you implied you had some handle on this list yourself. Such a list, if it has a significant degree of validity, would be a phenomenal accomplishment for this guy to have achieved, one presumably that would have at least some recognition, acknowledgement, or analysis pro or con by others in his field. But I just don't see anything. And if all this is elaborated on in Privileged Planet (in which case I need to get to the library) can you explain how on earth it morphed into that laughable version of it presented in the video? RegardsJunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
JT -- So, the conditions necessary for life on a planet are unremarkable enough that we would expect to have found them more often in the universe than we have? The conditions for life to exist appear to be quite remarkable, and if they weren't we would expect life to be common throughout the universe as per Star Trek. And the fact that we haven’t suggests intelligent design? No, it suggests that we are the endpoint of creation :-)tribune7
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
LOL Junkyard, Now Now junkyard don't feel too bad, would you have given me that same courtesy if you were in my shoes? I don't think so. LOL, I'm still laughing about it. LOLbornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
ba77: You could have said to begin with, "Yes, the thesis of the Privileged Planet, is that the mere factors necessary for life to even exist exceed the probability bounds of the universe", and then presented this paper. Instead, you directed me to some frankly embarassing, dumbed-down video, which only claimed that conditions for life were kind of rare, and that furthermore there were only 20 of these factors.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Junkyard, That Dude named Hugh Ross is a PhD astrophysicist who has made many correct scientific predictions using his own uniquely devised creation mo^del. i.e. That dude is a Doc!bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Well Junkyard, After reviewing the list again, My initial reation is that each Characteristic is sufficiently unique in underlying requirements to warrant its inclusion in the list. As well Dr. Hugh Ross does have that nifty reference list we can go through piece by piece if you want.bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
My initial reaction is how do we know all those variables are independent. He doesn’t address this at all. correction (from article): "dependency factors estimate ? 10-96" OK, some dude name Hugh Ross has a dependency factor estimate of 10^-96. There are 6 mentions of this article on the world wide web.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
ba77: As far as the second site, http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml which I'm still going through, there's no commentary by the author - don't imagine there's the equivalent of peer review to be found anywhere either - though I'm still surfing around looking for any other commentary on it. My initial reaction is how do we know all those variables are independent. He doesn't address this at all. If the probability of factor A is .1 and factor B is .1 the combined probability is not necessarily .01 if the two factors are causally connected.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Granville Sewell: "I think I know Michael Behe well enough to reassure you that this story (which he calls a “cartoon example”) does not represent his preferred view, and I’m sure he would agree with you that it is far-fetched. Let’s attribute it to his keen sense of humor." I am really happy of your reassurance. Indeed, that was the only part in his wonderful book which worried me a little...gpuccio
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
StephenB: I perfectly agree with you.gpuccio
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Gpuccio: thanks for your well-thought-out post. You have performed a valuable service by breaking these matters down in categories and describing the ways that life may have been set up from a design perspective. I offer one final thought about which you may or may not have an opinion. With regard to the theistic evolutionists argument that that God can use an “unfolding” Darwinian process to create biodiversity, I submit the following. A random (Darwinian) process cannot “unfold.” The only thing that can unfold is a non-random plan in which the finished product is built in as a kind of “seed” or, if you like, an “internal principle.” An acorn, for example, has the seed of a tree built in, meaning that there is only one possible outcome for the process. It does not “adapt” its way to its intended result, it “matures” its way to the intended result. God could have used an evolutionary process which would unfold to the point where you and I could be the finished product. Obviously, such a plan would have to include not only the unfolding of the organism, but also its ecological environment. A Darwinian process, however, cannot unfold in the direction of a desired end, because it must allow for many possible outcomes, otherwise it would not be a random process. Darwinian processes “adapt” randomly and unpredictably, they do not “unfold” purposefully and predictably. That means that IF GOD used secondary causes, such as a non-intervention evolutionary process, that process can produce an INTENDED outcome only if it unfolds according to an internal principle or plan. In other words, the finished product can match the intended result only if one outcome is possible. If a process is truly “random,” (Darwinian) then it is not unfolding according to plan; it is merely changing randomly. A plan cannot provide for both [A] many possible outcomes and [B] the exact outcome desired. It can produce one or the other, but not both. Thus, when TE’s suggest that God could have used a Darwinian process (by definition a random process that needs no directional or internal principle), they are talking nonsense. They are using the language of teleology (maturation, unfolding etc), while arguing on behalf non-teleology (adaptation, random change). It is a complete intellectual madhouse.StephenB
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
LOL Junkyard, I have to admit I was looking to set you up there, and you fell for it hook line and sinker, Man I love it when a plan comes together! LOLbornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
ba77 -it looks like you were setting me up a little bit there with that first video, because this latter source looks to be somewhat more serious (though give me some time to look at it.) But why would you present that first one, which IMO was basically a joke? (e.g. for no good reason they throw a pompous sounding british narrator into the mix occasionally, to give the proceedings some weight when maybe the producers felt like it was lacking.)JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Junkyard re 78 you state "My own model roughly (which may have no empirical basis at all) Watch it Junkyard you were very close to admitting the truth there.bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
check out this list Junkyard: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ? 10-388 dependency factors estimate ? 10-96 longevity requirements estimate ? 1014 Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ? 10-304 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ? 1022 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. Is that past the probability bound?bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
[ba77:] JT: "Does The Priviledged Planet say that the conditions they identified that are necessary for life on a planet are so rare that those conditions could not happen by chance in the Universe? Haven’t read the book, so was wondering if you have a reference if they address this." bornagain77 (#74) "Case For Creator - Privileged Planet http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=bc25d2e6882b6b03a578 -------------------------- The clip starts off by saying the list of necessary factors for life "has grown" to 20. Here are examples of some of these factors it lists: -A planet has to be in the right place in the galaxy. -It has to be in a planetary system with large outer planets to server as a buffer. -The sun it has has to be at the right temperature. -The planetary crust has to be at the right thickness to enable plate tectonics. And so on. Then the present the following calculation: 10^11 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 ... *1/10 [where there are 19 occurrences of 1/10]. If I'm not mistaken 10^11 * 10^-19 = 10^-8. But the total they immediately present after this is 10^-15, as the probability of getting the above planetary conditions. Even at this level, we're not anywhere close to Dembski's probability bound, so what on earth is the point of all this? If these things can come into existence somewhere purely by chance, then what's the point? Here in the video, and I genuinely regret having to say this, is where the blatant dishonesty sets in. Here one of the narrator starts talking about the probabilistic resources in the galaxy. He mentions that there are 100 billion stars in the galaxy. How stupid or dishonest do you have to be to make such an argument or be swayed by it? (And let me repeat - I sincerely regret having to say this.) How many galaxies are there in the universe????? I suppose I would direct this query to the british dude with the authoritative-sounding accent they use whenever they start talking about math. But even just erroneously considering a single solitary galaxy, the presenters by no means claim it would be impossible, just very rare. So once again, what's the point? Then finally they provide some clips from the author of Rare Earth, and he as well never implies that probability bounds have any bearing at all on such factors appearing on a planet.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Just to quote a few others on the consequences of Darwinism. "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." (Gould S.J., "So Cleverly Kind an Animal," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London UK, 1991, reprint, p.267). * "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" "...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.6). `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Asa Gray "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials" (1985:785), he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories..." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991, p.99).Borne
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
nullasalus : "I don’t think TEs are ’supporting the greatest engine for atheism ever devised’ - and I think regarding evolution (Not Darwinism, which I frankly consider to be a different thing at this point) as such an engine purely because some atheist..." 1st My statement was directed at Darwinism. That's what Miller and his ilk support. 2nd, The question is not who said it. The question is is it true? Can the statement about it being the greatest engine of atheism be substantiated? And the answer is yes. Otherwise how else do you explain the large number of atheists sprouting like spawned orcs on the World landscape since Darwin's dangerous idea took hold? You find far less atheism amongst scientists in physics and other hard sciences so it isn't because of theories in those domains. Darwinism has most certainly been an engine for atheism. Darwinism is the greatest 'scientific' support of atheism there is today. Without it atheists have nothing. Of course even with it they have nothing, since it isn't true and since there are 1000s of other domains from which evidence for the existence of God may be gleaned. But there are no domains whatsoever from which atheism can be logically derived. All that exists can be a focal point for logically inferring the existence of God. Nothing that exists can be used to logically infer there is no God. TEs want it both ways, as was said several times here. Imo, TEs are compromisers with the enemy. They are like the collaborators of the Nazis in WWII - loved neither by the Nazis nor their own people. There are two philosophies at work in this, not merely differing scientific ideas, and they don't mix well at all.Borne
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I think I know Michael Behe well enough to reassure you that this story (which he calls a "cartoon example") does not represent his preferred view, and I'm sure he would agree with you that it is far-fetched. Let's attribute it to his keen sense of humor.Granville Sewell
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Granville Sewell: Thank you for the comment. First of all, I want to state again my complete admiration for Behe: he is a great man and scientist, and, as far as I can judge, a very honest, sincere and amiable one. Obviously, one can partially disagree even with a person one deeply admires. That was my position in my post. Your comment has made me think about the question. My observations were based on what I remembered from when I read TEOE, some time ago. I had not ckecked. In general, I agree with you that Behe's position is that he "feels uneasy speculating as to exactly how the designer might have been involved, because he simply isn’t sure". I can appreciate that position, and if you read my previous post you will see that I consider very important to distinguish between the detection of the design as an outcome, and the detection of the process of design (even if I am not completely unwilling to make risky speculations about the second :-) ). Anyway, my sensation was that Behe had done something more than simply "not being sure" in the last part of his book. So I have tried to check. the passage I was remembering is at page 231 - 232. I cite some paragraphs here, but anyone can check in the book: "But the assumtpion that design unavoidably requires "interference" rests mostly on a lack of imagination. ... One simply has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify from the start not only laws, but much more. ... Suppose the laboratory of Pope Mary's physicist is next to a huge warehouse in which is stored a colossal number of little shiny spheres. Each sphere encloses the complete history of a separate, self-contained, possible universe, waiting to be activated. (In other words, the warehouse can be considered a vast multiverse of possible universes, but none of them has yet been made real). ... In one small closet of the small room of the small wing are placed possible universes that would actually develop intelligent life. One afternoon the uberphysicist walks from his lab to the ware house, ... and selects one of the extremely rare universes that is set up to lead to intelligent life. Then he "adds water" to activate it. In that case the now-active universe is fine-tuned to the very great degree of detail required, yet it is activated in a "single creative act". ... After that first decisive moment the carefully chosen the carefully chosen universe undergoes "natural development by laws implanted in it." In that universe, life evolves by common descent and a long series of mutations, but many aren't random. there are myriad Powerball-winning events, but they aren't due to chance. They were foreseen, and chosen from all possible universes. ... Those who worry about "interference" should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws." Here ends my partial citation. My comments? Well, maybe Behe is not exactly expressing his final views here, but I do think he is stretching the matter a little bit too much. He relives a strange version of the multiverse hypothesis, which differs from that of strict materialists only in the fact the the myriad universes "are not yet real", and that a designer chooses the appropriate one. But Behe should reflect that, if it were so, there would be no way of knowing if all the other possible universes do exist, and in that case the designer would not be required at all, and for the anthropic principle we are abserving the only universe which looks designed, but is not. I have always found the argument of the multiverse and anthropic principle at best childish, indeed really stupid and artificial. I think that when materialists use it, and I think the same when Behe does. The problem is that no real theist can think that "the universe unfolds exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws". That view, strictly deterministic, is completely irreconcilable with even the concept of free will in humans! Strict determinism is a total folly, incompatible with all we know about consciousness, purpose, design, free will. And it is not even required by physics! Strict determinism is just a religion, like strict materialism, and a very bad one indeed. So, with all my respect for Behe, I just don't share with him the need to make "those who worry about "interference" relax". They can stay tense as long as they like. Interference exists. I interfere with reality every day, and I don't think I am in any way privileged. Why should we deny God what we can daily achieve?gpuccio
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
ba77: "I am arguing for the Theistic ID(CSI)/GE(Genetic Entropy) mo^del which will hold that a single parent species (kind) is created by God with all inbuilt ability for variation of kind built into it, and that once God has created the species (kind) He does not personally “tinker” with the architecture of it anymore after He has created it I don't assume you meant that those seperate species just materialized instantanteously into existence. My own model roughly (which may have no empirical basis at all), is that you had cells emerging with a huge amount of junk-dna and only a very limited amount of express functionality. So all the mutations necessary were there at the very beginning. THen over time this very complex but nonfunctional genetic material got sifted out to be functional.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
"I think anybody would have to admit there would have to be a lot more than those four physical laws to account for the biological world" JT, Well, you would think, but I'm looking right now at a copy of a page from a physics textbook that says "Clearly many different forces are encountered every day. Yet all of them arise from just three fundamental forces in nature*: the gravitational, the electric and the nuclear force...The gravitational force, the electric force, and the nuclear force govern all that happens in the world." (* apparently the author combines the strong and weak nuclear forces here?) I'm sorry, but this is the "official" position of the scientific establishment today, and you and I are considered kooks for doubting it.Granville Sewell
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Junkyard stated: So my point is, I think anybody would have to admit there would have to be a lot more than those four physical laws to account for the biological world. Who, or what, told the laws to be at the precise unchanging values they are Junkyard?bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Granville Sewell: the laws of physics are very clever, but obviously not clever enough to explain all of biology: http://www.discovery.org/a/4474 I have perused "My Failed Simulation on Evolution" though not the other article in its entirety, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution". AS far as the former, if you had a program that would output the entire biological world of encyclopedias, airplanes and other manmade artifacts, then your program would equate to them in their entirety, i.e. would just be a compressed form of all that. I was curious what the size of this program was, and whereas your presentation was tongue in cheek I believe, what did you plausibly expected to accomplish. Any program that could output the biological world could not be less complex than the biological world, because we could use the least complex of the two of them (the program and the biological world) to accurately refer to the other. So my point is, I think anybody would have to admit there would have to be a lot more than those four physical laws to account for the biological world. Everything hinges on initial conditions. You can use something even more trivial than those four laws, and given the correct initial conditions, generate anything. If those initial conditions came into existence by chance then of course that limits what we could reasonably expect them to be. Just some feedback to indicate I've read one of the papers you provided. Respond or don't respond to this at your discretion.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Case For Creator - Privileged Planet http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=bc25d2e6882b6b03a578bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply