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
tribune7:What would be even more remarkable is that despite the size of the universe Earth is the only place that could support life, which is something also that should be pondered 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? And the fact that we haven't suggests intelligent design? What you wrote could be interpreted that way, though maybe that isn't what you were saying. 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.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
JT-- The only thing in post 68 that I can see that might contradict my understanding of ID is "So the question isn’t one of “intelligence”. If you can find design, and you find design you have to say that you found design. W/regard to but I think it has to be pointed out that the biological world could be the output of a mechanism which in turn could be the output of a mechanism, etc. my response is "sure". But why is that a better explanation than Goddidit? There is a limit to the human mind. What came before the Big Bang, and before that and before that etc. Where did the mulitverse come from etc. etc. The big question ultimately boils down to faith. if raw probability has nothing to do with our existence, then why is the universe as large as it is, if that size has no relevant bearing on us at all, and presumably we are the endpoint of creation. That's something to ponder. What would be even more remarkable is that despite the size of the universe Earth is the only place that could support life, which is something also that should be pondered.tribune7
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
nullasalus: Thank you for the feedback. Let's see if we can clarify some more aspects. You say: "It God knows that the process will generate life (and certainly human life), then it’s not ‘completely random and unguided’." No. The point with TE as I have defined it (that is, point 2 of my summary) is that God creates an universe where completely random and unguided processes will generate living beings. So, God knows that the universe as a whole will generate life, but the processes inside the universe which generate life are totally unguided and random. That's an important point, becasue it is the whole difference betweem ID and TE (just a note: in this post I will go on using the term TE in a very specific sense, that is what I have defined at point 2 of my previous post. I don't imply anything at all for anyone who things differently and who can well call himself in the same way). Again, to be clear: TE means (in the sense I have given) that one accepts that completely random and unguided processes inside the known universe can generate life. That's Miller's position, as far as I can understand. RM + NS are completely capable to explain life. Now, we have to understand that RM + NS do not require God in any way (except for a God having created a world where random mutations and natural selections happen). The process by which RM creates (according to both darwinists and TEs) biological information is not different from the process by which a deck of cards has some order after shuffling, or the molecules of a gas arrange themselves in a container. The processes are strictly deterministic. The observed patterns are strictly random. NS, according to both darwinists and TEs, is only a logical principle which can be factored in, but it is completely blind and unguided. So, in the view of TEs, once you have the world with its known laws, no God is necessary to generate living beings: they will come out of themselves. God may have known it in advance when He created the premises (the universe, the laws, etc.), but we can stop there. For the rest, He is not necessary: His laws, determinism and randomness have done all the rest. So again, God may have arranged anything in the beginning, but still the process, for TE, is completely random and unguided, and therefore indistinguishable from any similar random unguided process in the world. You say: "And I notice you’re leaving out the belief that evolution was guided, but the guidance is not detectable in a scientific sense. (I thoroughly believe it is evident in a philosophical sense.)" Here I think there is a misunderstanding on your part about the true nature of ID. ID indeed believes that evolution was guided. that's strictly ID. As for the "guidance" being detectable in a scientific sense, we have to distinguish between two different things: a) The guidance process, that is thw way the designer interacts with relity to implement the information. b) The guidance outcome, that is the intelligent information itself. ID state that b) is detectable. ID has no specific position about a) being detectable or not. The two things are completely different. Design detection (which means point b) is a definite theory, largely supported by facts. It is the essence of all ID reasonings. Design can be detected. It is detected. That detection tells us nothing both about the designer and the process of design. It just tells us that design was implemented. We still don't know by whom or how. Is that clear? My impression is that when you say that "the guidance is not detectable in a scientific sense", you are thinking of the process by which the guidance is imparted, not of the result. You are speaking of a), not of b). If, instead, you are speaking of b), then you are simply wrong (IMO, because I, as all IDists, am strongly convinced that design can be detected), and anyway your view is not anymore different from the one of strict TE: indeed, if we have no way to distinguish between biological information and any other outcome of unguided processes, we are again in the situation of strict TE: biological information can perfectly be explained without any intervention of God, just as any other random process can. About detecting the process, here we may have very different views. Personally, I think that something of the process should be detectable, let's say "on our side". But others may think differently. I believe Dembski himself has not a clear opinion about that, at least judging from what I have read. See also next point about that. You say: "I do not accept the TE views where life/evolution IS out and out unguided (Ayala I know had this view at least until recently - Miller, I’m not sure of, as he’s argued God could work through quantum events)." Well, here I would say you are ID, but may be I don't understand well your position. About Miller, he has to decide: either darwinian evolution is sufficient in itself, and then there is no need for God to work through quantum events, or in any other way. If he believes that God is guiding evolution through tampering with quantum events, then he is definitely ID. That's what many IDists think, including me. Let's discuss better that aspect of quantum tampering. The random part of qauntum mechanincs is, by definition, random. In itself, therefore, it does not allow any transmission of information. That's why if God (or our consciousness) wants to impart some specific information to events, He had to "tamper" with quantum mechanisms. The result will no more be random, but it will still be compatible with a "random appearance". Pseudo random distributions which in reality vehicle design are exactly what we observe whenever design is present. So, if God "tampers", the result is design, and design can be recognized for the meaning (functional specification) it has. Then Miller is wrong, and ID is right, even if the "process" of tampering were not scientifically detectable. If God does not "tamper", then events are really random, no design is there, and we are in the darwinist, or TE, scenarion, as you please. You say: "With regards to TE, my argument is only that I’m sure many people accept what amounts to a ‘historical TE’ stance and view themselves as TEs." No objection to that. Anyone can view himself as he likes. But I suspect most of these "historical TEs" are really IDists. They have just to define better their categories. You say: "If Miller is being irrationally hostile to ID and is proposing a ludicrous TE view, I have no problem with an ID criticism of Miller. Or of Ayala. Or of others, on the points of their belief." Neither have I. You say: "I am, however, very worried about attacking ‘TEs’ wholesale." No worry. we are attacking what I have defined, which is "strict TE". In other words, the belief that both strict darwinian evolution (unguided) and the existence of a creator God are true and perfectly compatible. That's the object of the attack. Nothing else.gpuccio
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Junkyard, I don't feel that is an appeal to ignorance in the least. Science is continually on a quest to discover a more complete understanding on the truth (thus ignorance is acknowedged at the start), yet materialist have artificially retarded scientific progress by saying something (God as a cause) is impossible prior to investigation of this "ignorance". Yet if this artificial barrier is removed, as is warranted by the stunning complexity we find in even the simplest life, then science is better able to find a " natural" mechanism by which God interacts with His creation. You can clearly see what I mean by "not disallowing God as an answer" by this line of investigation I took on another thread (Muller Genetic Entropy). ---- Let me try to be clear of how I am using the term Genetic Entropy since it is broader than how Sanford uses it; 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. Thus, He lets nature take its course, so to say, with Genetic Entropy. So we have a overall scientific mo^del to make predictions, perform tests, and check results with (not a mechanism but a mo^del mind you). What predictions can we make with this mo^del? Well we can infer and predict quite a lot actually. We can infer that the original genome of the parent species is optimal. We can infer that all adaptations of sub-species will always come at a cost of the original (CSI) information that is/was in the genome of the parent species i.e. we can infer loss of meaningful Genetic Diversity with all sub-speciation events. We can predict that sub-species will have less of a ability to sub-speciate (to radiate) than the original parent species did. We can predict that any naturally occurring mutations to the parent species genome will be detrimental to the overall complexity of the genome even though the “loss of information” may be beneficial for adaptations (Behe; Edge). We can predict that the longer God does not touch the basis architecture of His creation, and the longer “nature” permanently alters the genome of His creation, the more likely it is the species will lose morphological variability within species and adaptive flexibility of species, this also be predicted to be followed by the more likely it is the parent and sub species (kind) will go extinct. I probably left a few very important predictions out but this should be very basic outline of the Theistic ID/GE mo^del. So this is the basic mo^del that I start out with (a mo^del that is not artificially hampered by materialism), then I look in detail to different studies such as the trilobite study (Webster) and I find a consistent, detectable, tree-like, pattern of radiation away from parent species (more ancient lineages). I look to present day cichlid studies and again I find that the “ancient lineages” of cichlids have a greater propensity to radiate, plus I find greater meaningful genetic and morphological diversity (more photo-receptors in particular) for the “ancient lineages” of cichlids. As well I look at the oldest mtDNA evidence for we have for humans (40 to 50k ya) and I find a loss of genetic information. Present day study on humans produce loss patterns of genetic diversity from east-African populations. Dogs produce same loss pattern, Sheep same, Pigs same etc. etc. I look to the overall fossil record and consistently find a burst pattern of radiation from a distinct parent (kinds) species with marked gradual decline in diversity and variability over long periods of time for species (Kind). (MacNeill) I look to bacteria and I find all adaptation of bacteria to come at a cost of original CSI in bacteria with no demonstration of complexity above the level of parent bacteria (Behe; Edge) All these factors are predicted in the original and no overwhelming anomalies can be found (the materialistic evolution of RM/NS is bursting at the seams with overwhelming anomalies) For me this makes the case quite clear that this consistent testable pattern establishes the Theistic ID/GE mo^del as solid and testable. As with the 1st and 2nd law (Conservation of Energy and Entropy) flowing hand in hand to establish thermodynamics, I firmly believe that Conservation of Information and Genetic Entropy will flow hand in hand as primary principles guiding biological research. Though, anomalies may come up with Genetic Entropy, as they have come up with Entropy itself, that have to be dealt with, Genetic Entropy as a primary principle for biology appears to be intrinsically stable as an overriding scientific principle, guide, and structure, by which to make biological predictions and tests with. As a sidelight, I’ve been mulling over the principle of Conservation of Information (Dembski), in looking at Dr. Zeilinger’s work with quantum teleportation. And somewhat apart from the CSI developed by Dr. Dembski, I find this principle of Conservation of Information to run much, much deeper than I had expected. Indeed it seems to run into the fabric of reality itself. Dr. Zeilinger’s work with quantum teleportation actually establishes, through repeatable experimentation, that “transcendent information” is do^min^ate of energy/matter! Yet this is a very, very peculiar thing, for as James Joule, the father of the first Law of thermodynamics, wrote: “It is manifestly absurd to suppose that the powers with which God has endowed matter can be destroyed any more than they can be created by man’s agency.” i.e. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus since energy can not be created nor destroyed by man’s agency, who are we to think that “transcendent information” ,which has the power to tell energy exactly what to be, should be any “less than” than energy in this "eternal" attribute. Thus is it perfectly reasonable to think that “transcendent information”, which is in fact do^min^ate of energy, can neither be created nor destroyed also i.e. It is not reasonable to presume that “information” does not also have this "eternal" characteristic since it is indeed primary over energy. IMHO this interesting peculiarity found for the "do^min^ance of "transcendent information" found in quantum teleportation necessitates, even warrants, the inference to the “infinite mind of God” to stay consistent with logic, with the first law, indeed to stay consistent with what we know for reality as a whole. So Junkyard is it totally unreasonable when I make this measured inference or am I breaking some rule that you seem to think needs to be in place for science?bornagain77
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
I have no philosophical or religious quarrel with those, like Miller or Collins, who argue that the laws of nature are so cleverly designed by our Creator that they alone could have created the human brain. They are cleverly designed, and they alone probably do explain chemistry and geology and astronomy and meteorology, so it is not surprising that many assume they can explain biology as well. The problems I have are logical: the laws of physics are very clever, but obviously not clever enough to explain all of biology: http://www.discovery.org/a/4474Granville Sewell
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
tribune7 - I'll try not to sidetrack this thread, but just to reiterate my understanding which came to me recently, from something I read previously and had forgotten about. The problem with RM/NS as a mechanism is that you're putting too heavy a burden on the mutations, specifically because of the results regarding probability obtained by Dembski. The mutations are defined as happening by chance. However, this does not preclude the obvious fact that the biological world as a whole could be the output of a mechanism. Its just that ultimately, you have to trace any mechanism back to something that has always existed, not something that came into existence by chance. So the question isn't one of "intelligence". The question is, did whatever ultimately create us always exist, or just come into existence at a point in time for no reason at all, and the only alternative is the former. And it is crucial to point out that any mechanism that output the biological world would be an alternate encoding for the biological world so the two would equate, and so in some sense whatever mechanism created us would have to be intelligent as well, and could not be less complex than us. Maybe everyone here already has that understanding, but I think it has to be pointed out that the biological world could be the output of a mechanism which in turn could be the output of a mechanism, etc. But also regarding mutations and Dembski's probability calculations, the question remains, if raw probability has nothing to do with our existence, then why is the universe as large as it is, if that size has no relevant bearing on us at all, and presumably we are the endpoint of creation. That's all I've got to say.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
gpuccio, very good summary. JT --Cannot we say that something is designed by whatever preexisting physical conditions resulted in its existence? That's seems to be what the TEs say.tribune7
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Granville Sewell: "I think while [Behe] of course realizes that neither natural selection nor any other unintelligent process can explain the origin or major steps in the development of life, he, like most of us who support ID, feels uneasy speculating as to exactly how the designer might have been involved, because he simply isn’t sure. (Which is why many people say ID isn’t science, I disagree: you can conclude that something is designed without knowing who, when or how.)" Cannot we say that something is designed by whatever preexisting physical conditions resulted in its existence? When someone says intelligence design caused something, it is not known for example that human intelligence is not a mechanism. In fact, any attempt to understand intelligence will unavoidably end up treating it as if it were a mechanism. So someone produces a painting, and you can talk about him having an image in his mind, i.e. an image that is physically extant in some form in his brain. So there were certain requirements, in terms of the sophistication of his eyes and his brain's storage capacity and granularity. Then previous to this, he had developed certain abilities of manual dexterity, habituated by repeated trial and error over some extended period of time, enabling him to manipulate brushes and so forth, as well as developing the knowledge through indoctrination and/or practice of which type of brush produced which effect, etc, plus knowledge acquired through trial and error, practice, or indoctrination regarding pigments and the various psychological effects they produce when applied to canvas. Then you could talk about innate impulses we observe in higher lifeforms to copy or reproduce things in their environment, often as a means to strengthen bonds with others in the individual's social group to whom the individual relies on for access to food, mates, and so forth. So you can say that all these preexisting physical conditions plus some others are what led to the output of the painting. Saying that "intelligence" produced it is an appeal to ignorance.JunkyardTornado
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
gpuccio, You have a good summary of the various options, but I think you have misunderstood Behe's views. I have read both of his books and had a long conversation with him in 1997. I heard him refer to himself as a "minimalist": I think while he of course realizes that neither natural selection nor any other unintelligent process can explain the origin or major steps in the development of life, he, like most of us who support ID, feels uneasy speculating as to exactly how the designer might have been involved, because he simply isn't sure. (Which is why many people say ID isn't science, I disagree: you can conclude that something is designed without knowing who, when or how.) While all we can do is speculate on how God designed things, we can do more than speculate on what Michael Behe thinks about it; I don't have God's e-mail address but I do have Behe's if you want it.Granville Sewell
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
gpuccio, "Please note hat, in this scenario, evolution is completely random and unguided, although God has designed the general scenario where such a random and unguided process would generate life." It God knows that the process will generate life (and certainly human life), then it's not 'completely random and unguided'. And I notice you're leaving out the belief that evolution was guided, but the guidance is not detectable in a scientific sense. (I thoroughly believe it is evident in a philosophical sense.) Either way, I have no argument with StephenB at this point. I do not accept the TE views where life/evolution IS out and out unguided (Ayala I know had this view at least until recently - Miller, I'm not sure of, as he's argued God could work through quantum events). With regards to TE, my argument is only that I'm sure many people accept what amounts to a 'historical TE' stance and view themselves as TEs. If Miller is being irrationally hostile to ID and is proposing a ludicrous TE view, I have no problem with an ID criticism of Miller. Or of Ayala. Or of others, on the points of their belief. I am, however, very worried about attacking 'TEs' wholesale.nullasalus
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
nullasalus and StephenB: I will try to give, in short, my brief categorization about wht is TE and whta is not, in the hope it can help debate. With a gross, but probably useful, simplification, we can have: 1) There is no design. Only the laws of physics as we know them are real. They can perfectly explain the generation and evolution of living beings without any problem, if not about the details. The laws themselves can appear finely tuned for life, but that can be explained in some way (see infinite universes), or just deos not need to be explained. Everything is strictly determinuistic (except the random, non significant aspect of quantum level). That's, more or less, the "Dawkins" position. 2) There is no design detectable in the generation of living beings. The known physical laws are perfectly capable to explain what we observe, and nothing more is requested. But the existence of the universe as it is is designed, and God knew perfectly that such an universe would have, in a natural way, generated life. God may interact with the universe in other specific ways (revelation, miracles), but that is only a matter of faith and has nothing to do with science. That's, more or less, I believe, Miller's position. That's TE in a strict sense. Please note hat, in this scenario, evolution is completely random and unguided, although God has designed the general scenario where such a random and unguided process would generate life. In other words, God's main achievement here would be to have created Darwin's theory, and made a world appropriate for it. 3) Design is perfectly detectable in biological information. The existing physical laws as we know them are completely unable to explain what we observe in living beings. No random and unguided process can explain that evident, complex and efficient information, its existence and its richness. Only the intervention of a designer can explain that. That's ID. In the context of ID, however, there a re various different possibilities when you try to hypothesize how the designer has implemented that information. I'll try to summarize that too: 3a) I'call this view "weak ID", and I want to say immediately that it is IMO a very anomalous, and not very useful, point of view. I would not even cite it, if it were not the view expressed by Behe in TEOE, and may be a generic possible "compromise" between ID and TE. I don't agree with it, and I was very surprised to understand that it is Behe's philosophical view, but that is only further evidence that, while in ID we agree on very definite scientific facts (and Behe is certainly one of the best thinkers in ID as far as science is concerned), we can very well completely disagree in our philosophical, or religious, beliefs. The 3a) option, as far as I understand it, is something like that: The implementation of design in the living world is absolutely impossible without the intervention of a designer, and that can be shown scientifically. But, as God is omnipotent, he could just have chosen one of the infinite possible worlds, so that the real world is one where absolutely unlikely things have happened. (I apologize immediately with Behe and everyone else if I am understanding that thought in a wrong way: I am ready to correct myself, if that's the case). The point is that, in that view, design is real and detectable, but it was implemented "before" the creation of the universe, and not in its laws (otherwise, that would not be different from TE), but rather in an arbitrary selection of a specific possible contingent world: IOW, there is no scientific reason why life should happen in this universe, indeed in itself that's almost impossible, but God just "selected" an almost impossible outcome in the beginning. The important point is that no further detectable intervention is necessary "after" that first, metaphysical selection. I will not comment further about that for two reasons: that I find no reasonable appeal in that view, and out of respect for Behe, whom I deeply love for all his other thinking. 3b) Let's call that "front-loading". Many friends here are more or less for that kind of explanation. As I have written many times, front loading is a perfectly reasonable theory, but it is not my cup of tea, so again I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding. As I see it, the main point in front loading is that biological information is implemented "all at once", at some point of time, and then develops successively, according to the specific designed plan it contains. That is completely different from the views of TE, where no specific biological information is designed, and also from Behe's view, where the design implementation does not happen "inside" the phenomenal world. I believe that frontloading theories come in different forms, according to where and how the initial information was implemented. I think all of us may agree that OOL is a reasonable moment, but I will not go into details about frontloading because I would ceratinly say wrong things, being that a theory which I have never been really interested in. 3c) Let's call that "strong ID". Here I am more at ease, because that's exactly my point of view. The point is simple. Biological information is designe, not only at its origin, but at each single important increase of information. Each new plan is a new plan, more or less derived from the existing ones, but essentially a new design. That design, therefore, was implemented in biological beings many times: at OOL certainly, and then at each step where new information was necessary. Indeed, the implementation could be continuous or discrete: that is an important point, but does not change the fundamental scenario. For very strong IDists, like myself, the design implementation is necessary up to the level of species programming, but my friend Jerry would not agee with that, and would like to allow a greater range of action for the "abilities" of microevolution. But the point is, "at least" OOL and the higher levels of taxonomy are certainly, heavily, specifically designed. How that implementation takes place is all anothe matter. Here again, we have differences. Personally, I am not so much on the side of "miracles", but rather of higher laws, at present not understood by us, which allow a natural interaction between a conscious designer and the objective world (more or less, the same unknown laws which allow consciousness interaction and design in the case of human beings). But that's just my point of view. Finally, I will sum up my personal judgments about those positions. I find 1) completely false and unsatisfying: it explains nothing of what we really observe, and it artificially denies even the existence of the most important observable phenomena: consciousness, design, purpose, etc. But, at least, it has some form of internal consistency... I find 2) (TE) completely unreasonable, cognitively ambiguous and irritating, and I have no reasons at all to take it seriously. It's a way of thinking which has no respect for the objectivity of reality, and no internal consistency. I find 3a) equally unreasonable and inconsistent. At least, it is a minority position (I am not really aware of anyone else believing that out of Behe, but I may be wrong). I respect 3b) (frontloading) as a real possibility, but I don't believe it is true. I find many difficulties with that approach, which it is not the case to discuss here. I absolutely believe in 3c (strong ID). Let's remember, however, that all positions under 3) are ID positions: they agree that design is perfectly detectable. 1) and 2) are definitely not compatible with ID.gpuccio
June 14, 2008
June
06
Jun
14
14
2008
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
Ken Miller is a classic con artist, who uses his “religious faith” to further his own purposes, both monetary and in terms of self-aggrandizement. In my opinion he is in the same category as the TV preachers who con people out of their hard-earned money with phoney promises. It was for such people that Jesus reserved His contempt. Thanks, Gil. Too many people forget about what Jesus did or said. It is always good when someone speaks for him and can apply the label Pharisee to someone, even though they may have never met the person. Bravo.poachy
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Sorry, I meant that the terms "evolution" and "theistic evolution" have become muddled do to the dissembling of Darwinists and TEs.StephenB
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
nullasalus: I am sorry that these terms can be so elusive and confusing. Much of the chaos comes from the theistic evolutionists who have done so much dissembling. If the terms "evolution" and " evolution" have become so fluid, it is because TE's (and Darwinists) have made it a point to misuse those words for no reason other than to muddy the debate waters. In fact, I have noticed that it is the ID advocates who work hard to nail down their own definitions and the Darwinists and TE's who don't. I don't think that is an accident. Those who are on the losing side of an argument benefit from confusion while those on the winning side don't. I tried to make my case in as few words as possible, so you either find my arguments persuasive or you don't. In either case, I don't think you are a TE, so my criticisms are not directed at you. Granted, no one argues against the TE’s more fiercely than I do, but I have good reasons for it. My main quarrel is with the few big guns in academy who sustain the TE movement not the many seekers of truth who have fallen into that camp unaware of the deceptions that have been visited upon them. I am merciless with the former because of their duplicity, but as gentle as a lamb with the latter because of their innocence. Francis Ayala is clearly part of the elitist problem that I describe. He misuses words, misrepresents arguments, and subordinates his faith to Darwinist ideology. Indeed, he accepts and even celebrates the incredibly unjust decision at the infamous Dover trial, agreeing that ID is little more than recycled Creation Science. I gather that you have spent enough time on this site to know how untrue that is.StephenB
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Saint and Sinner, "First of all, YEC isn’t the easiest to disprove. It’s simply has more things to defend." That's beside the point for me. Atheists *believe* it's the easiest to disprove. And coincidentally, many of them insist it's the only view of Genesis to have. I'm suggesting that many of them insist on the latter owing to the former. Again, what I'm illustrating is this: I think it is a tremendous mistake to regard evolution as verboten for religious believers just because some atheists crow about how the idea of evolution is a powerful force for atheism. It is, frankly, an intellectual trick.nullasalus
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Back to the theme of this thread: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ken_millers_random_and_undirec.html Ken Miller has attended the Church of Darwin for many years, and has made big bucks as a result of it. He now claims that he never inhaled the anti-Christian theology which has been published repeatedly in his books. Give me a break. He actually believes what was published in those books. Six of his 11 editions contain this stuff. Now he claims that it was a "mistake." How can one read one's own published works and not know what was in them? Ken Miller is a classic con artist, who uses his "religious faith" to further his own purposes, both monetary and in terms of self-aggrandizement. In my opinion he is in the same category as the TV preachers who con people out of their hard-earned money with phoney promises. It was for such people that Jesus reserved His contempt.GilDodgen
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
nullasalus, First of all, I responded to the specific use of the Virgin Birth in my response to JunkyardTornado. I have no problem with the providence via secondary means. I'm a Calvinist, that's how I believe that God brought about the entirety of history: through human choice. However, there are certain things that cannot be naturalized: the Resurrection, for example. "Do you honestly think it’s coincidental that said atheists also think YEC is the easiest view of Genesis for them to attack and disprove?" First of all, YEC isn't the easiest to disprove. It's simply has more things to defend. Secondly, I take an Instrumentalist view of science. So, the dating methods, starlight, geology, etc. normally used as "evidence" for an old universe don't phase me. I could become a Biblical errantist, an open theist, deny the virgin birth, half the events told in the gospels, etc. all so that I would have to defend a "minimal" Christianity, but those positions aren't what I'm convicted of.Saint and Sinner
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
StephenB, Thanks for the courtesy. That adds to my dilemma - which is essentially that this debate is fraught with all manner of confusing terms. The fact that I'm 'historically a theistic evolutionist, but technically an IDer, even if I lean towards B' highlights the problem for me. I think there are many more people like me who would define as 'theistic evolutionist', or come vastly closer to that than, say, Francisco Ayala's take (Miller I am not familiar enough with, but Ayala's views on evolution honestly strike me as true snake oil. Especially in light of his recent change.) I guess all I'd say further is, be wary of attacking TEs. I'm willing to bet a lot of them are like myself.nullasalus
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
JunkyardTornado, "Your remarks about methodological naturalism destroying Christianity called to mind an idea I had that what if the Virgin Birth had a natural explanation. It doesn’t destroy my faith, personally." I understand. However, things like the resurrection cannot have a naturalistic explanation if Christianity is true for the simple fact that the reason given for Christ's resurrection was his righteousness (Acts 2:24, Rom. 1:4). Also, an ascension into heaven isn't exactly natural either. However, the same methodological naturalism that TE's use to deflect ID arguments is the same methodological naturalism that atheists and skeptics use to argue against the historicity of the Gospels. "Since we should favor a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one (no matter how absurd the former is), the Gospels must be a-historical because they have supernatural content in them," or so the saying goes. I've heard it several times from atheists and skeptics, and it is the guiding presupposition of unbelieving "Bible scholars". Lastly, I apologize if I came across as a bit harsh. I'm simply used to debating the snarky (or so they think) militant atheists.Saint and Sinner
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Poor theistic evolutionists, they want to be accepted as religious by the religious and as modern and scientific by the materialists. They are afraid that if they don't appeal to the materialists that they will be shunned by them. So how to kill both birds with one stone? Claim to be religious but support evolution. In order to prove you aren't an irrational religious nutcase you can't just support evolution, no, who knows, you may be a closet creationist (equalivalent to a child molester by materialists because you do immense damage to children by denying them their Darwinian savior. Soyou have to prove you are one of them, you have to go out of your way to attack the creationist bogeymen to prove to materialist "society" that you really are "normal" and have accepted Darwin as your own personal savior even though you believe in God. They hate ID because they feel rejection of evolution reflects badly on them. And after all, what they really care about is their prestige and the social connections they bring. They are either liars about their religious beliefs or they are sell outs.mentok
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Larry writes: Anyway, my analogy still holds. I just don’t see Mormons worshipping Smith in the same way that Darwinists worship Darwin, e.g., I don’t see “I love Smith” knick-knacks. True. But, then again, there is no such thing as special Darwinist underwear. So, it probably evens out in the end.poachy
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
nullasalus: "I know you and I have locked horns on this in the past. But I have a question for you: What if a Theistic Evolutionist believes in evolution, in Common Descent, but rejects ‘random and unguided’. As in, God may have well foreseen and preplanned the entire development of life from its origin to its current state, and that humanity/intelligent life certainly was the a goal and intention of these processes. Is such a person a darwinist? A TE? An evolutionist? An IDer? A mix? You have been a good sport about my relentless assault on TE's, and I will not violate that spirit of friendliness and mutual respect. In any case, what you describe is not theistic evolution in the modern sense. Essentially, you are in the Behe camp. A person who believes that God purposely and mindfully directed the process of evolution with a specific end in mind is simply a theist who believes in evolution. That sounds suspiciously like theistic evolution, but it isn't. If the process is pre-planned, it is teleological, meaning that it "unfolds" with and end in mind---it has a goal---it goes through a “maturation” process guided by an internal principle. In the old days, this is what theistic evolution meant, because many who used the term were referring to Teilhard De Chardin, who proposed a teleologically driven form of evolution. Other theistic evolutionists of that era simply believed in a non-Teilhardian theistic evolution that was, nevertheless purposeful in its formulation. The design was real. It can either be set up in advance to do its own thing (unfold according to plan), or it can accomodate intervention at various times and places. Either way is compatible with ID. Against this notion is the idea that no teleology is necessary, that an unguided, random process without any aim at all can produce and sustain life given enough time. Put another way, time and chance, as its advocates would have it, can make up for the lack of planning. This is Darwinism and it was originally conceived not as an explanation for Biblical creation but as alternative to it. Accordingly, it develops not according to an “internal principle,” which has an end in mind, but rather through “external adaptation,” which does not. It simply doesn’t know where it is going. By definition, it is unplanned. Under these circumstances, any notion of design is, as Darwin pointed out, an illusion. Today’s theistic evolutionists (most, not all) believe in this form of evolution except they say that God planned it. Well, you can immediately grasp the problem here. To say that God used a Darwinian process is to say that God planned an unplanned process. Remember, a Darwinian process is, by definition, unplanned. There are exceptions to this, but most TE’s are Christian Darwinists, which, as I hope I have shown, is a contradiction in terms. So, if you believe in a purposeful, mindful evolution, you are not a theistic evolutionist, except in the historical sense. I salute you for that. I would rate attitudes about ID in four categories. [A] Design is illusory [B] Design is real, but undetectable [C] Design is real and detectable, [D] Design is real, detectable, and measurable.StephenB
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
scordova, I'd agree. But that presents a dilemma to me: I accept evolution without problem. Common descent, fine as well. I don't rule out the thought that there could have been some direct 'act' by or on behalf of God in that history, but I personally don't think it's lab demonstrable (And Behe, it seems, is open to that possibility as well.) But it seems to me that I can call myself all of those things. I can be a darwinist because I accept so much of the science-sans-philosophy. I can be an evolutionist because I certainly accept evolution and common descent. I can be a TE because I believe these things are all guided by God. I can be an IDer because I believe design is an integral part of our natural history. I don't think I'm alone in this view. As I said, I do not like how Ken Miller approaches this subject, or Francisco Ayala. Collins has been soft on the subject, but more amenable in general as a result. And I think warring on TEs as a group, rather than focusing on particular advocates, would be a mistake. But, I'm just one lone voice. I just wanted to see where I would be classified by people here. I do not mind being placed in Behe's niche at all.nullasalus
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Is such a person a darwinist? A TE? An evolutionist? An IDer? A mix?
Such a person would be a Michael Behe.scordova
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
StephenB, I know you and I have locked horns on this in the past. But I have a question for you: What if a Theistic Evolutionist believes in evolution, in Common Descent, but rejects 'random and unguided'. As in, God may have well foreseen and preplanned the entire development of life from its origin to its current state, and that humanity/intelligent life certainly was the a goal and intention of these processes. Is such a person a darwinist? A TE? An evolutionist? An IDer? A mix?nullasalus
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. In this mighty “war of culture,” affecting as it does the whole history of the World, and in which we may well deem it an honour to take part, no better ally that Anthropogeny can, it seems to me, be brought to the assistance of struggling truth. The history of evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. ~ Ernst Haeckelbevets
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
-----Eric Anderson: "The only way to get out of this intellectual conundrum (guided evolution=intended result; Darwinian evolution=unintended result) is to take the view that there in fact was not an intended result, and that, therefore, whatever RM+NS produced was perfectly fine, thank you very much." Exactly right. Under the circumstances, the Creator would simply have to live with the surprise result. Weight that against, the Bible's account: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; ..."StephenB
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design?? Bill Dembski? Well, they do look a lot alike. :-)Granville Sewell
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Saint and Sinner, A problem here is that you're employing a term like 'miracle' without realizing that what constitutes a 'miracle' is itself debated even among orthodox Christians, and leads into a question of what constitutes 'supernatural'. What specific way would God have to accomplish the Virgin Birth (or any other miracle) for it to have truly been an act of God? Why couldn't the virgin birth been have an event orchestrated far in advance through natural channels? Heck, what is the difference between a natural and a supernatural thing? Because the naturalists essentially take the tact that 'Everything that truly exists is natural'. 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 it is unbelievably dangerous. What if an atheist said that Protestantism 'Was the most important event in Western History as far as justifying and laying the groundwork for atheism goes'? Should we declare Protestantism an atheist tool and condemn it? Do NOT let atheists dictate what you can and cannot believe, or what does or does not support atheism over theism. If you let them control the debate like that, they'll pigeonhole you. And I remind everyone here that Dawkins and other atheists are on record as saying they think Young Earth Creationism is the only true option for any Christian. Do you honestly think it's coincidental that said atheists also think YEC is the easiest view of Genesis for them to attack and disprove?nullasalus
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
StephenB, I think you are right that there is potential self contradiction. If there was an intended result, there must have been some guiding direction (whether direct intervention from time to time or a front-loading process that would lead to a known and intended outcome). But that kind of process doesn't sound very Dariwinian -- certainly not a process based on RM+NS. The only way to get out of this intellectual conundrum is to take the view that there in fact was not an intended result, and that, therefore, whatever RM+NS produced was perfectly fine, thank you very much. The problem with this view, at least for the theistic evolutionist is two-fold: (i) it doesn't sound much like rational theism, certainly not any one that posits an active creator, which Ken Miller gives lip service to, and (ii) RM+NS is woefully inadequate to account for the creation.Eric Anderson
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply