Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
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?jerry
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Er, 'that there is no actual chance from the perspective of God' that is.nullasalus
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Bill (#15) -- I've raised issues I have with Giberson and his new book directly with him on the ASA list. I agree 100% that the slights from the TE "side" are equally unwarranted. To me, though, God "covering his tracks" isn't a fair statement of most TE views. Is any stochastic process in nature an instance of God deceiving us by "covering his tracks?" When we say a new-born baby is a special gift from God, are we making God a liar because from our human perspective what sperm fertilized what egg seems random? I agree that TEs who argue that God cannot have left empirical evidence of design in nature overstate their case. But likewise, it seems an overstatement to me to say that God must have left empirical evidence of design in nature (apart from the ordinary human experience of beauty, awe, and such in the presence of nature's grandeur). Whether such "traces" exist in DNA or some other biological structure seems to me an empirical question that can only be settled by looking at the data, not by preconceptions about what God "must" or "must not" have done.becke
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
becke, That is not what I get from reading the ASA blog or reading the books they recommend. 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 always found this a specious argument, Anyway the evidence does not point to secondary causes. Interesting you would use the word "many" and not all when referring to the creation of humans.jerry
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
jerry, Actually, TEs at least can (and I know some do) admit that the way evolution is commonly presented encourages atheism. It's one of my biggest complaints with the topic, and I think nonsense and philosophy is routinely shoehorned into its explanation. Calling evolution 'unguided' is, for my money, unscientific unless you have a test for guidance/design. So is calling fundamental aspects of it 'random', which is a loaded word - from our perspective it may be random for all practical purposes, but that's different from well and truly random. I'm also not sure ID proponents MUST reject macroevolution. I could be wrong, but doesn't Behe accept this? I can't see how he couldn't yet still accept common descent, but I could be wrong on this point. Now, with that said: Unless there's something going on here (quotes being taken out of context, etc, and I have no reason to believe so at the moment) the quotes provided from Miller and Levine's books are pretty damning. And I will outright admit that Ayala has always struck me as, frankly, a con man: I honestly suspect that his past takes on evolution and God (Which amounted to 'Darwin did God a service because creation is so utterly terrible and depraved that only a monster could have allowed it, but thanks to Darwinism it means God didn't create it') amounted to well-poisoning. Making a evolution seem to describe such a ludicrous and horrible world that atheism was the only sane option, and offering up a 'reconciliation' any sane person would reject as described. Miller I have less knowledge of, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if he played the same game. On the other hand, maybe someone can help me out here. Just who ARE 'The TEs'? Because Miller and Ayala are just two guys, and terrible examples. Dinesh D'Souza is certainly another TE, but he takes the tact that evolution is routinely and horribly abused in description by atheists to support philosophy that the science simply cannot do. Michel Heller was quoted here once as he won the Templeton prize, but he seemed to take an Augustinian view that there is actual chance from the perspective of God. Collins is a TE, but I recall him having some praise for Dembski and generally trying to stake out a position as a TE sympathetic to ID. In fact, most of the TEs I can think of tend to regard ID more with polite disagreement than outright hostility. Again, I could be wrong - I'd love to see more examples of this hostility. I know the American Scientific Affiliation had some issues with ID, or so I recall.nullasalus
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
becke, I am not sure Behe accepts Darwinian macro evolution. I believe he says there is no evidence to support it but neither is there any evidence to support any other mechanism. In the Edge of Evolution Behe specifically undermines Darwinian macro evolution.jerry
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Jerry -- I think you are confusing TE with Deism. All of the Christian TEs I know reject Deism. They instead refer to primary and secondary causation, and see God as ominpotently and actively engaged in guiding evolution for his purposes, though without radical intervention that would leave a trace against the stochastic pattern of ordinary development. Many of these TEs also accept a particular, "spiritual" intervention by God in the creation / impartation of the humnan "soul" and / or the imago dei. Some Christian TEs I know might approach this through more of an open theism model, which views these ideas of causation differently. But none accept Deism.becke
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
becke: I suggest you raise your concerns on Karl Giberson's blog. I agree that God could have created a world in which he covered his tracks so that his design of the world is scientifically undetectable. ID says there's evidence that renders design scientifically detectable. TEs can't seem to handle the very possibility.William Dembski
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
becke, There is another major difference between ID and TE's that I see, Theologically the traditional God of Judeo Christian theology is thought of as omnipotent. During the enlightenment as the laws of nature became revealed a revised image of how God accomplished his works developed. One way was that all was set in motion from the beginning and there was no need for God to constantly interfere to repair or reset this intricate clock that He started at the beginning of the universe. The TE's hold to this view and include evolution in this world view. ID says the evidence does not support this view for evolution and the TE's reply that this means ID holds to a lesser God because of the necessity of constant intervention. There are other issues such as evil and theodicy that get brought up and discussed by some here. TE's often challenge ID on theology as well as on science.jerry
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
StephenB said: Guided evolution is well within the bounds of ID. I respond: Yes, I completely agree. 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.becke
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Jerry -- but Behe accepts "macro" evolution, as do many other ID advocates. What Behe says is that Darwinian "macro" evolution, including human evolution, is a fact, but that it can't account for all the biological structures we observe in nature. Likewise, the explanatory filter doesn't say "no way" to "macro" evolution -- it just says that the "information" content of the genetic code points to intelligence -- whether the designer developed the code gradually or not. Some ID's (e.g. Mike Gene) accept just about all of "macro" evolution except for a "front loading" of information. The dispute between most TEs and most IDs is about the meaning of "chance," God's action in nature, and natural theology (what we can know from God's action in nature). These are important differences, but they don't IMHO touch on the really hard issues for traditional Christians.becke
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
With atheists holding all the high positions of power in academia and the National academy, it has become popular to say that belief in God is unscientific, i.e. it is a belief in superstition, yet It is amazing to find that most major scientific discoveries were actually at the hands of fervent Theists, and thus, in final analysis, genuine atheists seem to be the ones in intellectual poverty, with very unscientific beliefs that have prevented any truly major breakthrough discoveries on their part on which they can brag. Famous Scientists Who Believed in God http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Robert Boyle (1791-1867) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947) And if we go even further we can make a good case that Christianity was essential for science to develop in the first place Christianity and the Birth of Science http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ excerpt: THE EVIDENCE Clue #1. The founders/fathers of modern science were shaped by a culture that was predominantly Christian. The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I'm thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory). If an appreciation for math and the cause-and-effect workings of nature were sufficient to generate modern science, how does one explain the historical fact the the founders of modern science were all found in a *particular* culture that just happened to be shaped by a Judeo-Christian world view? Instead of measuring energy in joules, why don't we measure it in platos or al-Asharis? Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not *really* Christians. That is, they really didn't *believe* in Christianity, but they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be persecuted. This is the "closet-atheist" hypothesis. But it doesn't square with the facts. Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in theology. If you read Pascal, this is obvious. Mendel was a monk. Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in science. Newton did end his Principles with: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God." As Charles Hummel notes, "Newton's religion was no mere appendage to his science; he would have been a theist no matter what his profession." Boyle set up Christian apologetics lectures. Babbage and Prout contributed to an apologetics series called the Bridgewater Treatises. Aggasiz, Cuvier, Fleming, Kelvin, and Linnaeus were what we now call 'creationists.' When I speak about Biblical beliefs that paved the way for science, I will use both Kepler and Pasteur to highlight two specific examples. Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists."bornagain77
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
-----becke: "Even if one accepts strong ID arguments, there is a huge leap from there to separate, special creation of every “kind,” including humans, and the problems of how and when sin and death entered the creation remain unresolved." Where did you get the idea that ID necessarily posits a separate, special creation of every kind. Guided evolution is well within the bounds of ID.StephenB
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
becke, The main difference between TE's and ID is Darwinian macro evolution. TE's accept it without much criticism and many have put their theological underpinnings on it as the "way" God designed life. ID says no way and that there is no evidence scientifically for Darwinian macro evolution. At the same time there is a belief amongst most ID people that Darwin's ideas lead to atheism. Obviously the TE's cannot admit this. Thus, the rancor between them.jerry
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
As someone sort of caught between the ID and TE "camps," I really don't understand all this chest thumping and name-calling, from either side. When you boil it down, there is very, very little difference theologically or pragmatically between say, Mike Behe and Francis Collins. In truth, they both accept "evolution" if that just means common descent, and they both accept "ID" if that just means God designed the universe (even, for Collins, down to cosmological fine-tuning). Bill, I'm not really sure why you think the "problem" TE tries to address "no longer exists." Even if one accepts strong ID arguments, there is a huge leap from there to separate, special creation of every "kind," including humans, and the problems of how and when sin and death entered the creation remain unresolved. It seems to me, this is where most of the really difficult theological and Biblical / heremneutical problems that TE tries to address lie.becke
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
TE's aren't loonies. They're spineless appeasers. They know wearing on their sleeve a belief in a personal living God who can make miracles happen with a wave of His hand will make them look like superstitious fools among the "higher" scientists. National Academy members, the higher scientists, are 71% positive atheists, 22% agnostics, and just 7% who profess a faith in God. Plain and simple, TE's are caving in to pressure from the majority of the most accomplished scientists. Wimps. If Judas was alive today he'd be a TE. DaveScot
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
I would have preferred peaceful co-existence with the TE's. My first choice was to agree to disagree---to seek common ground---to dialogue in a spirit of friendliness and mutual respect. But it was they who decided to go on the attack, defending their materialist atheist friends. It was they gave theological respectability to the atheist lie that ID scientists smuggle religion into their science. It was they who appeared in a court of law for the sole purpose of institutionalizing that lie, even as they swore on a Bible to tell the truth. It was they who helped perpetuate the insane idea that the ID project to secure its rightful place at the table was, at bottom, a covert plot to establish a theocratic tyranny. This same nonsense, by the way, came from the same ideologues who really do bully design theorists in the academy and who really have established an academic tyranny of their own. Now, they have decided to up the anti by suggesting that we are a danger to the culture. But we are the only ones who are willing to uphold that culture because, unlike them, we agree with the main teaching in Declaration of Independence. We actually take seriously that idea we were designed to be free, as the “laws of nature” and “nature’s God” inform us. On the other hand, they are the ones who are offended by these ideas. They are the ones who deny that Jefferson was a “design” thinker, or that we were created in the “image and likeness of God,” or that we have “natural rights,” or that these ideas could be “self-evident.” They are the ones who are a danger to society, because they are the ones who deny the basic principles upon which a well-ordered-society is grounded. In any case, it is the TEs who have abandoned the Christian world view. According to the Bible, God reveals himself in scripture AND in nature. This is not some mere exegetical reflection, it is an undeniable declaration of fact. To deny it is to take an anti-Christian position. If a design is not detectable, then it can hardly be a revelation.StephenB
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
andrew: Theoevos have been outside Phil's tent for more than a decade. It's been by mutual consent. What's more recent is theoevos not allowing ID as a legitimate Christian option. My new book UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN (co-authored with Sean McDowell) addresses this:
As you attempt to argue for intelligent design against Darwinian evolution, you’ll discover a strange thing: some of your most ardent opponents will be religious critics who claim that by accepting intelligent design you are actually denying the Christian faith. Come again? That’s right, they’ll claim that intelligent design is a religious heresy and that you need to renounce it before you can be a Christian. Your initial reaction to this charge may be to think these people are mad—after all, weren’t all the great theologians of the past basically in favor of ID? But, in fact, these religious critics of ID are quite sane, and it will help here to understand where they’re coming from. Forewarned is forearmed.
To be fair, in writing this passage, Sean and I were addressing extreme religious evolutionists such as Francisco Ayala. I suspect that Ken Miller would not deny that ID proponents can be Christians. But it might be worth checking. William Dembski
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Karl Gibeson wrote: I am sick and tired of seeing genuine Christians smeared by creationists
Me too. I don't like creationists smearing Mike Behe because he accepts common descent.
Karl Gibberson: Bill Dembski is blasting theistic evolutionists on his blog now.
Yeah!
And on it goes. Is it any wonder that Christianity grows less attractive to our culture? We can't even get along with ourselves, much less welcome those outside our faith. Shame on all of us for how this conversation is conducted. —Karl Giberson
Who is conducting a smear campaign here, Karl? Do you consider the highly paid IT professionals, attorneys, and medical doctors on this blog "welfare queens". By the way, you wrote: "How to be a Christian and believe in evolution" Well, I think one can profess to be a Christian and profess to be a Darwinist. One can also profess to be Christian and believe in epicycles, phlogiston, and geocentrism. The point of the intense disdain toward cretain TE's like Ken Miller is that he resorts to fabrication, falsehood, misrepresentation (even under sworn oath) in order to defend Darwin's false theory (and his pocketbook). What happened to scientific integrity?scordova
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
I think the "welfare queen" tag is hilarious, coming from people who live on the tax dime while strenuously fronting points of view that the vast majority of taxpayers don't accept, AND hassling any scholars who do. That far better fits the Miller crowd.O'Leary
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
My problem (as a Christian who doesn't swallow Neo-Darwinism), is not with the fact that Theistic Evolution is random. Proverbs 16:33 says, The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. In other words, seemingly random events could be unfolding according to a Divinely-ordained programme. Theologians have debated how God's sovereignty and human free-will can co-exist since the year dot. So, theologically, there is no problem with the seemingly random side of evolution. The problem with *some* theistic evolutionists is that they are two-faced. One the one hand they deny ID - that there is any discernable Divine design or purpose evident in creation (or, at least, in biology). On the other hand, they turn round and say (when amongst Christians or when talking to the media as spokesmen for theo-evo) that they believe that there is a God who is behind creation (ie. they do subscribe to a form of ID). This approach seems to be a purely political tactic. It is a tactic to keep their reputation intact in the face of the atheists/materialists who have a 'take no prisoners' attitude to those who deny methodological atheism. I think the weakness of their position will become ever more untenable as they are caught in the cross-fire between the materialists and the IDists. The materialists will attack them for believing in God on a 'blnd faith' basis, while the theists will attack them for their theodicy: saying that God used the ruthless process of 'nature red in tooth and claw' to do His creating. Phil Johnson's attempt to get them on board by using a big-tent 'Intelligent Design' approach has clearly failed and needs to be abandoned. Instead, just as these theo-evo's repeat a political mantra (ID is creationism), so too, ID needs to encapsulate its opposition to these ID-denying theo-evos in a smart catchy line that exposes their hypocrisy and shifts the agenda of the debate so that they are on the defensive.andrew
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Bill, You can hear and see Miller calling us anti-American welfare queens on the Colbert Report video I put up this morning. What the hell is his major malfunction?DaveScot
June 17, 2008
June
06
Jun
17
17
2008
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply