TheoEvo vs. ID — Hey, who started this anyway?

_{William Dembski

June 17, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Ken Miller compares ID proponents to “welfare queens” (go here) and Karl Giberson denounces ID proponents for “smearing” theistic evolutionists, citing this blog (go here).

Besides displaying desperation, these people have no evident sense of irony. Miller has for years been dipping his hand into the public till, which continues to underwrite sales of his textbooks.* And Giberson, in defending Miller and Francis Collins, seems to forget that they are ones charging ID proponents with threating America’s soul and future (go here).

So, it’s okay to for theoevos to cast ID in apocalyptic terms, but it’s not okay for IDers to call them on it. Give me a break. As Denyse O’Leary has put it, theistic evolution is a solution to a problem that no longer exists. Bankruptcy is hard. Get used to the pain.

——–
*Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”

(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution israndom and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)

(2) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 1993)

(3) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1995)

(4) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (4th edition, Prentice Hall, 1998)

(5) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (5th ed. Teachers Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000)

(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its
by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152

(7) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its
by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (2nd edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161

Comments

Ted, Most of us here prefer to discuss science and often avoid theology since it can become very loaded with people of different Christian faiths, Jews, Muslims and some agnostics posting here. Also most of us are not theology trained other than what one would expect from someone who is religious and attends services for his or her religion. Thus, theology does not get anywhere near the level of discussion as it does on ASA. Even while we love science, most here are also not trained scientists but there are doctors, many engineers, computer scientists or just well educated and well read people. So there are many here who have good brain power but are just not practicing scientists. The trained biologist who post here are generally supporters of the Darwinian paradigm so we have some opposition who post also. Many will also discuss cultural issues and philosophy but the heart of what ID is about is science. So it rubs a lot of us the wrong way when many, including most at ASA, deride ID as anti science or not science. So I am sure you will be getting lots of science questions if you decide to come here periodically. I know I have many but will wait to ask them till the basic TE/ID battle front is diffused. Then we can see where we disagree on science and maybe theology. And by the way many of us here disagree on the science underlying ID.jerry_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

Ted, You can make a case that Behe is a "TE". The problem is that ID is distorted and its advocates are demeaned and slandered, and those who claim to be believers in a Creator -- and often claim to be Christians -- hold the coats of those doing it and even join in the kicking when the subject is safely on the ground. Miller is one of them. I don't think anybody here objects to criticism of ID or attempts to refute it. The leading lights of ID clearly do not hold common descent to be a disqualifying view for joining their club. But why is the "Edge of Evolution" not science? Why isn't it something that would make a reasonable, objective person go hmmm? Or at least address it seriously? And why is it wrong to attempt to use a measurable methodology to attempt to find design in nature? There is nothing wrong with attacking (honestly) the measurements or the methodology, but what the opponents do is attack the attempt. And some prominent TEs seem to do it on a religious basis.tribune7_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PST}

In my honest opinion, it seems that once you are a Christian or theist and you allow miracles in your worldview you have opened the door to God and have no way of keeping him out. For TE's there seems to be a disconnect between miracles, such as Jesus' resurrection, and His intervention in other parts of History, al la Evolution. The problem I see with such views is that it becomes problematic trying to up hold the schism between a belief in an active personal God and a belief that he has kept his hands out of the formation of one of his most precious creations. It would seem to follow, that once you have a personal interacting God, there is little grounds for excluding him from life's history. At least that's how I see TE's worldview. Or to put it as a question, why would God interact with his creation and yet, have nothing to do with its formation? Christian TE's and IDist both try to uphold a God who interacts with His creation, I simply think the latter does a better job of being consistent. I once had a friend ask, "Once you've let God in the door what's to keep him out?" I hope this all makes sense as I have been writing in haste. Thoughts or Criticism?rpf_ID_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PST}

bornagain77, I understand your point about Miller, and I also understand that DaveScot was specifically thinking of Miller in his comment above. I'm less willing myself to confine Miller to perdition (that's up to God, and I suspect that God is unhappy with all of us), but DaveScot seems to generalize far too quickly here. I have personal knowledge of the religious lives and views of many Christian scientists, and many of the TEs I know don't hesitate to affirm the bodily resurrection and many other biblical truths. And yes, many of them also think that evolution (I hesitate to use the word "Darwinism," since it has become an ideologically loaded term for many here, even more than "evolution" itself) looks like it's true--at least mainly true, if not necessarily the complete picture of how nature works. I realize that lots of people don't understand how this can be true--either (they might think) those scientists are just compartmentalizing their thoughts; or they are just not thinking very hard about how their religious and scientific lives relate; or at worst they are just hypocrites, even spineless one. Many of the people I'm thinking of here, bornagain77, simply don't fit the three categories I just offered. They are genuine Christian believers, with active and strong religious lives, who are not afraid to live openly as Christians within the scientific community; and, they have thought long and hard about how their faith and their professional lives relate to one another. They are not hypocrites and they have backbones. They may not be visible to you here, and the larger culture tries to deny their existence, but they exist in good numbers. Part of the problem, IMO, is that some participants in the culture wars want to force people to the extremes--they want Dawkins to represent science, and they want Ham to represent Christianity. Dawkins is a scientist, and Ham is a Christian, but that's as far as I would be willing to go with that view. Miller has apparently denied even being a TE, whatever one may make of that--it's just so often a matter of how terms are being defined, and by whom, isn't it? If there were no culture war involving origins, IMO, then Ken Miller and Mike Behe would both be seen by many as a couple of Catholic biologists who differ on the minutia of how to understand our present ignorance of certain biological phenomena. One puts more emphasis on what we don't know (thinking that we will probably never be able to know it), and the other puts more emphasis on what we have already learned (thinking that probably we will continue to learn a lot more). Their theological views are not very far apart on some important points--Mike even talks about this in his essay for "Debating Design." And, IMO as an historian of science and religion, Mike's views on evolution, God, and design are not much different from those of the first American Darwinian, Asa Gray. Gray is usually seen as a classic example of a TE, and IMO without the culture war Mike Behe would be seen as a TE also. And surely, Mike is not spineless, any more than Gray was--or Francis Collins is, or Owen Gingerich is, or ... too many to list.Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST}

Ted, Do you believe that ID is not significantly different than "creationism"?tribune7_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST}

There are people who are sincere, will conduct themselves in an honorable fashion, but still be deeply mistaken.... There are lots of TE's that fall in that category. John Sanford was a TE, I was a TE, Henry Morris of (gasp) ICR was a TE, Caroline Crocker was a TE, I presume Bill Dembski was a TE....probably 80% of everyone in the ID movement was TE..... There are TE's, however, who conduct themselves in a manner that's pretty questionable....I don't have much hope for them because it is apparent, they are quite willing to resort to fabrication and misrepresentation to attack ID. A more representative term might be Theistic Darwinist....because the term "Darwinist" carries the suggestion of having unsavory qualities...scordova_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST}

Ted, If a TE scientist, such as Miller, continues to deny the overwhelming evidence of unexplained complexity in life, when repeatedly exposed to it, as Miller has been, and continues to maintain that Darwinism has full explanatory power and is not even in doubt, as Miller has repeatedly done (trashing ID proponents in the process I might add). All the while maintaining that he is a "devout Christian" who believes in Almighty God, has earned full right to the term absence of backbone (spineless in my book). I might even add that he has earned full right to the term hypocrite as well. Although only God can truly judge the full intent of a man's heart, and far be it from me to say I know all the motivations of any man's heart, from all outward appearances that I can see of the man he is indeed a spineless hypocrite who is more afraid of what his peers might say than what Almighty God might think.bornagain77_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST}

The last paragraph of my post should be So I hope Ted comes around often because we can only be the better. He is an expert on the history of science so I am sure he will be valuable to us on this when he comes here.jerry_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST}

Ted, Thank you for your post. For those who do not know anything about Ted Davis, he is one of the more reasonable men on the planet. He is not an ID supporter but is a defender of ID to those who criticize it. In other words Ted has defended ID people on the ASA site a multitude of times and if we want a valuable resource about non ID religious view points he is the person to ask. He along with David Opderbeck are more that willing to discuss ID and be fair about it without being a proponent of it. So I Ted comes around often because we can only be the better. He is an expert on the history of science so I am sure he will be valuable to us on this when he comes here.jerry_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PST}

I am responding to DaveScot's comment about, about the absence of backbone amongst TEs. Much of my response is taken from something I wrote 3 years ago for a different but similar audience, as explained below. It fits now here, thus I mainly just edited that a little. To begin with, IMO DaveScot has given voice to a view that is rather widely held among advocates of ID--though I want to point out right away that I know several leading ID advocates, including fellows of TDI, who simply do not share this view and indeed who would repudiate the tone and lack of discernment that the quoted paragraph contains. DaveScot speaks as an individual, and his views on this are not shared by at least several people who are considered leading ID advocates. This is my post, and I'm not going to drag those folks into this, but they exist, and there may be more of them then DaveScot would want to admit. They are not figments of my imagination. I have however interacted with a number of ID advocates who agree with DaveScot that TEs are "spineless appeasers." In a few instances this might be an accurate assessment, but as a blanket statement it's both highly inaccurate and insulting. DaveScot certainly knows it's insulting, and he probably doesn't care how accurate it is. It isn't even original. DaveScot said the same thing on UDC back in May 2005, less than three weeks after I had responded to this particular sentiment--using highly similar language. My comments were posted to a very large private list for ID supporters and some others (such as myself), and I would not be surprised if DaveScot was present there to see them (I do not know for a fact that he was). Instead of writing a brand new response to him now, I will edit the one I made 3 years ago, in order to remove a few specific references that were specific to persons on that list and to keep on focus here. Most of what follows below is taken directly from my comments at that time. Again, the larger context was that I resented the generalization that TEs lack backbone--that they are just seeking acceptance from secular academics and smothering their religious views to gain that acceptance. The image in my own mind was of Churchill, in parliament in 1931, seeing the "boneless wonder" in front of him in the person of Ramsay MacDonald. A famous speech, obviously, and it captured well the impression I was forming of how some ID adherents were seeing TEs in general. The immediate context was the editorial that "Nature" ran about ID, accompanying the article on the Dover trial that was its cover story in April 2005. What did I tell my friends on that list, at that time? Here is the edited (see above) text: Nature is absolutely right, IMO, that it is religious scientists (the noun here leaves me out, unfortunately, or I'd happily include myself) who are vitally important in this conversation. To be perfectly frank, a lot of the ones I know who might otherwise be more sympathetic to giving helpful comments about ID in their classes, have been alienated from the ID movement by the type of rhetoric we find above [I was responding to similar comments by someone other than DaveScot]. In 1922, Bryan referred to TE as "the anesthetic that dulls the pain while the faith is removed," thus in a few words shortcutting any serious attempt to have productive conversations with most religious scientists at that time. (And the early 1920s were the watershed years for this type of conversation, with Warfield and Strong and Orr and other more thoughtful people passing from the scene and with the militant anti-modernism of the self-styled "fundamentalists" coming on strong.) I'm not claiming that ID is responsible for Bryan, but it isn't hard to find similar kinds of comments, foreclosing conversation with many Christian scientists who are TEs and who are not afraid to speak about their faith on their highly secular campuses. The type of personal and intellectual trivialization depicted [in your post] is obviously not helpful to anyone; we surely agree about that. But IMO both as a Christian scholar and as a scholar who does specialize in studying Christianity and science, the religious scientists on secular campuses are the key people in this conversation. I have met one or two who might fit your [description], or Churchill's description of the "spineless wonder" sitting before him in Parliament. Nearly all of them do not. Let me suggest a few of the reasons why many religious scientists do not support ID on their campuses. (And yes, I realize that there are also other religious scientists on secular campuses who do support ID but are literally afraid to say so b/c they haven't got tenure yet, or b/c they want to keep getting NIH grants. I am not pretending that they don't exist, they clearly do and some are on this list. Nor do I mean to imply that they are the real spineless wonders, for they are not.) This is what I am hearing from those religious scientists on secular campuses who do not support ID. These are the main things I hear, in no particular order: (1) Evolution is a valid theory, or "true". By this they usually mean that common descent is a reasonable scientific conclusion from the evidence--esp the historical evidence, which some IDs tend to ignore b/c ID officially brackets the age/historical sequence question. Age for these folks is just not negotiable or bracketable, it can't be put aside for discussion at a later date. It's a fact that shapes our interpretation of other facts. (2) It is unclear how one would do science differently with ID, when it comes to working in laboratories and observatories and in the field. There is no "there" there, in terms of an alternative theory for contextualizing stuff. Keep in mind the historical comment above--in the historical sciences, history is foundational. And in some sciences that are not strictly speaking historical--particle physics would be a nice example--what we know historically (e.g., that the heavier elements have been built up from H and He in the interiors of stars over billions of years, or that the cosmic background radiation matches perfectly with theoretical blackbody radiation from the big bang) makes sense in light of what we know when historical questions are not directly considered. (3) Theodicy. This is perhaps the number one reason why secular scientists do not believe in God. As long as ID brackets conversation about theodicy and other theological issues, people like Jack Haught (whose theology I do not embrace) and John Polkinghorne (whose theology I generally do embrace) are going to make a lot more sense to the religious scientists who talk to secular scientists. These religious scientists are not embarrassed by their faith, and they are quite willing to talk about it openly. They simply recognize that this is a conversation at the level of theology and metaphysics, not at the level of science. And they tend to believe that conversations of that type do not produce knock-down arguments that an unbiased, rational person has to accept. (4) ID smells a lot like YEC to many religious scientists. A good number of religious scientists have come from very conservative religious backgrounds. For various reasons that I won't spell out here so as not to offend some on this list [I was thinking here of some YECs], they have had some tough personal struggles with some baggage relative to science, and they don't want to relive those experiences. I know that ID is not YEC, and I think you know that I know that. But the tone of some ID stuff, with its highly negative comments about evolution and its alleged cultural consequences, only echoes the tone of the stuff they have left behind. Mike Behe, they might find reasonable and even a little persuasive; but [others] they find unreasonable and even offputting. Throw in the rhetoric about "dancing on gravestones" (claims that we're living in the last generation of evolution, claims that sound like the Millerites waiting for the second coming), and they start looking for the exits. (5) Different views of science as a religious vocation. This isn't usually phrased as I just phrased it, but that's what is meant when people talk about discipling their graduate students while helping them to write publishable papers. They aren't encouraging their students to challenge "Darwinism," rather they are encouraging their students to live strong religious lives while doing quality mainstream science. They haven't been convinced that this constitutes a contradiction to or betrayal of their religious commitments, and they don't appreciate efforts in the popular religious press to paint them as spineless wonders. The biggest problem with such efforts is not so much the insult (although that is real and noticed), it's the fact that these very faithful servants (as many of them are) are having their vocations written off. That isn't how one gains support from people who share some of one's concerns. I do not see the Nature editorial as an invitation to "treachery." [I quoted here someone I was responding to] Rather, I see Nature's call for a broader conversation as an opportunity for IDs to call for an even broader conversation. The problem you may find, however, is that the broader conversation is *openly* about theology and metaphysics, not simply explanatory difficulties of "Darwinism" in accounting for flagella and Cambrian phyla. And that's just where many of those religious scientists already are. Fact is, the Brits (Nature) can take this angle more easily than we Americans can, b/c they aren't constrained by a First Amendment that is being misapplied to public education. But at the college level, at least, even a Eugenie Scott admits that serious conversation about religion is permissible. Why not take them up on their suggestion? TedTed Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST}

The most offensive thing in Miller's new rag is the inane claim that somehow ID is a threat to civilization. That is unbelievably stupid and/or hypocritical. The Judeo/Christian values upon which America was founded are diametrically opposed to just about everything Darwinism, and it's undergirding materialist religion, stands for. History attests to this in no uncertain terms. I wonder if Miller's name in Greek or Hebrew adds up to 666? :-o Can't be, he isn't smart enuff for that job.Borne_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST}

Who started this? They did. But it doesn't matter. We'll finish it. ;-)Borne_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PST}

StephenB, Thank you. I'm not familiar with most of those names, but I was hoping someone would give me a list to go on. I'll cede that you clearly know more TEs than I do, and thus a lot of your TE-hostility may be due to greater information. I've seen PvM do his song and dance, though, and I'd place him right alongside Ayala. Everyone else, only a passing familiarity at best.nullasalus_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST}

I think the term Theistic Evolutionist is too weak. Theistic Darwinist is more accurate. Definition of Theistic Darwinist: 1. believes in Darwinism 2. despises ID 3. claims to believe in God Mike Behe, Mike Gene, many others are TE's that are friendly to ID. The term Theistic Darwinist would not apply to them, but it would apply to Ken Miller, Keith Miller, George Murphy, Jeremy Mohn (of PT), Burt Humberg (of PT), Wesley Elsberry (of PT), PvM (of PT), Karl Giberson, Michael Dowd, and many of the Darwinist folks at Baylor, SMU, Wheaton, and others...scordova_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PST}

Information is do^min^ant of energy/matter...bornagain77_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PST}

The definition of information?" Information is nt of energy/matter in quantum teleportation experiments, so information should be rigorously defined transcendent of any energy/matter basis. Information clearly deserves a concise definition that is completely separate and also one that maybe even foundational of any energy/matter considerations.bornagain77_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PST}

THE very definition of information would be - "God SAID - Let there be light - fruit bearing trees - seeds = INFORMATION - "Front Loaded indeed. I hope not, but suspect that all this tiptoeing around Design ("inference") may cloud the "Eyes to See" given to an open heart and mind when just observing what is - A. a Creation or B. a happening of some sort. I bet most here would agree to the possibility of being "educated" out of our minds. Miller is a prime example - and not maybe either. The natural mind is ever persistent to its own truth if not discerned by the "Mind of Christ" and as He said - "They have their reward".alan_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PST}

Dr. Dembski, just a comment on becke supposedly "posting too much on this thread". He posted once with a direct comment on the matter at hand and his subsequent six posts, prior to your adminishment, were all responses to direct comments or questions addressed to him, including one from you! In what sense was he "posting too much"?greyman_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST}

TE's are not all of one mind, all you can say about what they all have in common is that they claim to believe in some type of Godhead and some form of evolution. Besides those 2 claims of common ground there is a wide variety of opinion depending on how they percieve God. How they perceive God determines how they perceive evolution. Really TE's are advocates of a religious philosophy more then anything else. Whereas ID's are more then anything else advocates of a scientific paradigm leaving religious philosophy out of it. There two approaches to evolution is what is causing the friction between the two types of people. The TE's are mostly criticial of ID based upon theology and philosophy. Some try to argue against ID based upon science, but invariably they come across as either arrogant and foolish (Miller) in their attempt to earn a living off of supporting the atheist establishment in their attack on religion, or they come across as out of their league when it comes to the science. They have a view of God which can't allow God to be intimately involved in our world because that would bring in the problem of why God "allows bad things" to happen. Therefore their God is not involved in our world to any great degree either because he isn't able or doesn't want to. And they claim that that idea is theologically superior to the implication of ID of a God who is intimately involved in our world, at least in the design of life forms. To them a God who doesn't want to get involved or cannot get very involved in our world is a superior type of God then a God who can and does get involved in our world. Why? Because a God who can and does get involved in our world is not the type of God who fit's into their theological conception. It's not only their inability to deal with the "problem of evil", it's also that many of them have an idea of a God who may be impersonal to one degree or another. Their God may be some kind of energy being, some kind of cosmic spirit without a mind or intelligence or personality, without omnipotence and without omniscience. Not all TE's have the same view of God even though they may claim to be a Christian, or a Jew etc. For example there are many different types of "Christian" philosophies and Jewish philosophies. Some advocate--like the former Vatican astronomer George Coyne--a theology where God is some unknowable cosmic love spirit something-or-other which set the universe into motion, then having nothing to do with the universe after that, no design or rhyme or reason of any type, just sat back and watched evolution happen for billions of years to see what would happen, and then sends love vibes to humans when humans come into existance by chance. From that extreme negligible type of God to varities of that or other impersonal or impotent or uncaring types of conceptions of God can be found among TE's. Why they think a God who wouldn't want to be involved with life here on earth very closely, as if there is something else for God to be doing, is theologically preferable to an active caring interested God, is based on their ignorance of God. They don't why God would allow the world to be the way it is if God was in control, therefore God can't for some reason or another be allowing the world to be the way it is. They are the judges of what God is or isn't, God is what they say God is, that is good theology according to them. For them to claim that ID implies bad theology in comparison to their own is laughable.mentok_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PST}

Slightly off the topic of Miller's apparent schizophrenia of beliefs, Belief in a universe which has rationality at is core is the fruit of the Theistic Philosophy which holds that the universe is the product of a rational mind. Materialism, which holds that chance is ultimately responsible for the universe and life, offers no such rational core to its basis and in fact impedes science. For example, Einstein's greatest blunder was the cosmological constant he inserted in his equation to reflect the steady state "materialistic" theory for the universe.i.e. materialism was the true source of his greatest blunder. "God does not play dice!" Einstein "God is known by nature in his works and by doctrine in his revealed word" Galileo as well I found this book that looks very interesting Scientists of Faith http://www.rae.org/scifaith.html excerpt: Everyone knows that science and the Christian faith are incompatible-right? Secular thought often portrays religion as the enemy of science, but the truth is that many of the world's greatest scientific discoveries were made by persons of faith, seeking to honor God and His creation. Scientists of Faith relates the personal stories of forty-eight scientists and provides a brief overview of each person's contribution in their own particular field. Included are such notables as Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, and George Washington Carver. I recommend looking at the list of scientists on the site it is truly a impressive list. It makes me wonder if there are any atheists at all who may have founded any uncontested branch of science.bornagain77_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PST}

becke: My phrase "covering his tracks" keys off of Ken Miller's "scientifically undetectable." ID starts with the possibility, not the necessity, of detecting design and leaves open that there can be forms of design that are undetectable. Miller advocates the necessity of design's undetectability.William Dembski_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

Bill, I wasn't intending to charge God with deception at all. You implied in comment #15 that the TE view has God "covering his tracks" (at least that's how I understood what you said). My response is that a stochastic process doesn't mean God is "covering his tracks" in some kind of deceptive way -- which I think we agree about? To me, this means that if God created life as we know it using stochastic processes, it's unfair to say God is then "covering his tracks." It just means God chose to use stochastic processes, as he evidently often does. I've read the Design Inference and many of your other essays, as well as most of Mike Behe's work -- which is one reason I was surprised by the "covering his tracks" reference to the TE position. I agree with you 100% that when TE's say God's creative activity must be always and entirely stochastic, they are overstating their case. I am not defending Ken Miller -- I personally have no taste for his rhetoric. johnnyB -- you mention convergent evolution. I'd classify Simon Conway Morris and his book Life's Solution as TE. If you'd classify that as ID, that's fine with me. It illustrates that the "boundaries" between TE and ID can be quite permeable. If you think all TE's can't tolerate "guided evolution," then I think you misunderstand the nuances of different TE positions. I know some prominent TEs who are Calvinists and who believe emphatically that God guided each step. TomRiddle -- most of the Christian TEs I know believe in miracles and intercessory prayer. Some I know personally are quite "charismatic" in their theology in this regard. There is no conflict in this position -- I think even most Christian IDs believe that God ordinarly does not do miracles. Life generally happens according to the usual laws of nature and God's providential guidance is not usually directly empirically evident. But sometimes God does heal or guide in sudden, miraculous ways, as he chooses to do so. Since I've been admonished about not posting too much, I'll bow out. Thanks for the conversation. My hope and prayer is that people who follow Christ will be able to debate and discuss these questions without flames and wars.becke_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

Becke. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions. You said "TEs who argue that God cannot have left empirical evidence of design in nature overstate their case." This is exactly the claim that separates TE and ID. With this claim they intentionally divorce themselves from the inclusive ID camp. They cannot accommodate Mike Behe in their camp either. The detection of design by any means other than a mystical feeling is anathema to those in the TE camp. Also you say "it seems an overstatement to me to say that God must have left empirical evidence of design in nature" Of course that would be a silly statement and you will never find that claimed by any prominent ID proponent. ID is a target of ridicule first and foremost only because the philosophical difficulty that arises if one agrees that there is an objective way of detecting design.idnet.com.au_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PST}

becke: ID doesn't say that design must be detectable in biology. It says look to see whether it is -- and upon examination the evidence seems to confirm that it is. What have you read of the ID literature? There's nothing in my book THE DESIGN INFERENCE to suggest that nature must answer our questions about design in nature one way or another. It's Miller and Co. who have skewed the dialectic by urging that God is "scientifically undetectable" (the phrase is his -- see FINDING DARWIN'S GOD). I'm surprised that you see ID as charging God with deception when he acts through stochastic processes. To say that we can detect design in some cases doesn't mean that God doesn't act when we can't detect it. I think you're posting too much on this thread. Please limit your posts.William Dembski_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PST}

Becke - I think the problem is that you are failing to distinguish between Darwinian macro-evolution and plain macro-evolution. Behe, for instance, believes in macro-evolution, but not Darwinian macro-evolution. That is, genomes were front-loaded with information to guide the changes that were made. That is an ID option. However, what these TheoEvos are saying is that this option is simply un-Christian. But if you look at the evidence, the evidence is clearly against Darwinian mechanisms, and the amount of non-descent-based homology (called convergent evolution by most biologists) is staggering, and indicates that some other factor is in play. The three main options are (a) close your eyes and pretend that this isn't significant, (b) there are common design patterns that a creator used in creating organisms, or (c) life was pre-loaded with the information to build these types of structures. (a) is the only non-ID option. What these people are saying is that choosing (b) or (c) or some combination of all three is simply un-Christian.johnnyb_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PST}

Interesting to note that in Psalm 77:19, God does indeed cover his tracks: Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen. I love that verse!! What God does is His perogative.TomRiddle_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PST}

-----becke: "I respond: Yes, I completely agree (That ID allows for guided evolution.)" "So, this is why I don’t understand the rancor from either side between TEs and IDs. “Guided evolution” is also well within the bounds of TE. At the end of the day, the differences between the two “camps” are tiny compared to our common differences with materialists and atheists." I don't agree. I think that you are dismissing the main area of contention. It is precisely the notion of "guided evolution" that TEs cannot tolerate. There is no teleology in Darwin, and Darwinism is the defining principle for most TEs. So I am not getting your point here.StephenB_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PST}

Hi. This is a serious question, and not a joke. I have honestly been too embarrassed to ask someone face-to-face in fear of being too naive: do TEs believe in praying for the sick, or anything else? that is, they don't seem to think God gets involved in nature. So, do they think he gets involved in cancer? Would he reach down and cause someone to be healed? If so, doesn't this violate their whole argument about God being hands-off? I'm not sure how the bridge that gap. I didn't really feel satisfied with the theistic evolution paper in Mere Creation, so I was unable to get any guidance there and hoped that someone here could respond.TomRiddle_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PST}

Jerry said: Could somebody please tell me that if God guided evolution either by primary or secondary causes and then covered his tracks, how each such event is not an example of special creation? I respond: well, "covered his tracks" isn't accurate. But otherwise -- exactly! It isn't all that different, IMHO.becke_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

Jerry said: Why does it make a difference whether God used primary and secondary causes and aren’t these really the same anyway once you know the pre determined outcome? I respond: No, they aren't the same. There's a long tradition in Christian theology concerning primary and secondary causation. Read, e.g., Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles. It's been an important argument against attributing evil, particularly human evil, to God.becke_{June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply