Timaeus Asks “Why the Loss of Nerve”?

Gregory:

p.s. perhaps “Christian Darwinian Evolutionists” or “Christian Darwinian evolutionary theorists/biologists” would be more accurate, but then again, BioLogos is against ‘evolutionism’ as ideology, just as ASA is against ‘total evolution.’ So there doesn’t really seem to be an appropriate concept among these options that isn’t going to be taken as an insult by one side. Personally, I think you folks use CND pejoratively, which doesn’t seem conducive to fruitful dialogue. But do you really want that anyway, if all it means is ‘adapt our IDist pov’?

When you insinuate that ID proponents are appropriating the term “Neo-Darwinism” for purposes of insulting TEs, you are, yourself, resorting to an ad-hominem argument and avoiding the more challenging task of engaging in a productive dialogue. The reason for our language has been made clear. When TEs complain that atheists are intruding metaphysics into science by promoting the doctrine of “evolutionism,” they conveniently forget how they intrude metaphysics into science by promoting their own doctrine of “radical contingency.” Do they labor under the illusion that condemning the atheists’ presumption will justify their own? Fruitful dialogue requires forthrightness. Will the Christian Neo-Darwinists (or you) provide a forthright answer to the perennial question that always goes unanswered: Do you advocate [a] Theistic Evolution-- a goal-driven process than will infallibly produce a desired outcome, or do you advocate [b] Neo-Darwinian Evolution--a chance-driven process with the potential to produce many possible outcomes? If the answer is both [a] and [b], please explain how those two positions can be reconciled.StephenB

November 20, 2012

November

11

Nov

20

20

2012

05:16 PM

5

05

16

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

On Gregory's latest: 1. We all slip into overgeneralizations ("superlatives" is the wrong word) from time to time, and I know I can be as guilty as the next man. But I'm willing to retract when I've done that. So, if you look at this column: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/41851/ You will see that Ted Davis shows me in 19 that Polkinghorne is an exception to my generalization, and that I concede this in 26, and restate my generalization in a reduced form. 2. The discussion would be advanced if Gregory would cease trying to catch me out on slight argumentative overkill of the kind above, and address my substantive point with an open mind (instead of reflexively contradicting everything I say). The main point of my argument, of course, is: (i) that most of the leading TEs in the American culture-war arena -- the ones best known from the PEC book, the ASA journal, BioLogos, and the popular books (Miller, Collins, etc.) -- do assert, or strongly intimate, or imply by the way they argue against ID (as God of the gaps) that God works almost exclusively through natural causes, and that it is nearly certain that this is the way he works in evolution, too; (ii) however, there are a few TEs who seem to affirm, or seriously entertain -- and not merely as an insincere diplomatic point to calm down Bible-believing evangelicals back in the home church -- that God acts outside of natural causes in evolution (even if the action is scientifically indetectable). And I'm trying to get people to ask why the TEs are split in this way, and I'm trying to figure out why there seems to be very little *public* debate or even conversation between these two groups of leading TEs. The last point is important, since the two positions cannot both be right; i.e., if Russell is right about how God acts in evolution, Lamoureux is wrong. If TE is ever to become a theoretically coherent position -- as opposed to an assembly of private theological fancies of individual Christian scientists -- which is all it is now, except for polemical purposes, when the TEs join hands to attack ID and YEC -- it will have to have open public debates between the two positions. (God performs special divine actions, which are necessary in order for evolution to achieve his intended outcomes, or God doesn't, because natural causes, unsupplemented by special divine actions, are fully sufficient to guarantee man or anything else God intends.) I've asked if anyone -- whether Ted Davis or someone else, can point me to a book review of a "God doesn't act specially" TE by a "God does act specially" TE, i.e., to a place where a major theological split among TEs comes to a head in public dispute. No one has cited me any book reviews of this kind. Ted has cited us many articles in the ASA journal where a TE argues against the ID or YEC position; I don't recall one citation of an ASA journal article *devoted to the refutation of one TE position by another*. Nor is there any such debate in the PEC book (the major TE collection known to me); nor has there been any such debate on BioLogos during the whole tenure of its existence. It is almost as if there is a tacit (or behind closed doors) agreement that the two groups within TE will not engage each other publically. I think that the fact that there is not a vigorous public debate amongst TEs bodes very ill for the future of TE as an intellectual position in the theology/science area. All positions, hypotheses, and theories in natural science, social science, the humanities and theology thrive and advance when there is open public dispute; the various protagonists sharpen their insights against the the blades of the others, and the mutual learning allows each to modify his position and thus for all to progress together. Nothing would be healthier for TE intellectually than to have a no-holds-barred internal debate over the question whether God needs to do anything special, beyond sustaining natural laws, in order to guarantee evolutionary outcomes -- and over the related question whether God in fact does guarantee or even wishes to guarantee evolutionary outcomes. Ted often accuses ID people of culture-warring. I agree that ID people have often been guilty of this. From time to time I've slipped into it myself -- though I always try not to. But if TE is defined primarily by what it is not -- YEC, OEC and ID -- what is it but a culture-war position? And while I know that individual TEs such as Russell and Polkinghorne and Barr try to stay above the culture-war fray, TE from a birds-eye view is still more a culture-war position than a coherent theoretical position, and that won't change until the TEs concentrate on debating amongst themselves between various *positive* theses (God relates to evolution in manner A, God relates to evolution in manner B, etc.), and spend much less time and energy on purely *negative* theses (ID is wrong because ... YEC is wrong because ... ). So what I'm doing here is laying out a challenge to the more theoretically open-minded and academically savvy TE leaders: Show some leadership, whip your timid and complacent colleagues into shape, mobilize them for conferences and essay collections where TE positions are vigorously debated in the full public view. Don't let TE rest in the nebulous, 'I believe in evolution and I love Jesus, and maybe there are problems relating Darwinian theory to God's providence and how it all works out is a mystery to me, but that doesn't matter, because for Christians the important thing is that we can all have hymn-sings at Christian scientific conferences together, celebrating the fact that God in some way, somehow, created an orderly world through mostly random processes.' If TE takes that route, it is finished. It will become nothing but a ghetto activity for evangelical scientists; it won't influence the wider academic world or the non-Christian society surrounding TEs in the slightest. 3. Regarding "naturalism," Gregory's discussion seems to rest on an insufficient appreciation of the different meanings of the word. "Naturalism" as an extreme metaphysical position -- there is only Nature, no Creator-God -- is of course not held by TEs of any stripe, and no ID person has said that TEs don't believe in a Creator-God. But there is what we might call "theological naturalism" -- the position that God, though he *could have* created all things via direct divine action, chose instead to create them through natural causes which required no special divine action on his part. Thus, he did not "poof" the Sun into existence, nor did he manually pick this hydrogen atom and that hydrogen atom etc. and manually compress them all until he got the Sun; instead, he created natural laws (gravity, nuclear interactions, etc.), so that any cloud of hydrogen gas of sufficient size in an appropriate volume of space would condense into a star. This is the overwhelming if not unanimous view of TEs regarding how the Sun was formed. At least, I've never heard one suggest that maybe God snuck around doing things under the cover of quantum indeterminacy, in order to make sure that the Sun got formed. Now, when this view is applied *consistently*, biological evolution must be understood as occurring through wholly natural causes, and not requiring sneaky little manipulations by God hidden under quantum indeterminacy. So the question is: are TEs *all* wedded to a consistent theological naturalism? If so, then Russell, etc. are being inconsistent, failing in nerve, when they allow for sneaky intervention. (Why should God need to intervene in order to make man, if he doesn't have to intervene in order to make the Sun, the earth, a suitable oxygen-water biosphere, the right proportion of metals in the earth's interior, etc.?) But if not, if some TEs (e.g., Russell) *don't* have any creed of theological naturalism in origins, then why isn't there more explicit disagreement between him and, say, Falk, or Venema, or Giberson, or Collins, or Lamoureux? And more specifically: Why, when BioLogos constantly attacks Mike Behe for allegedly introducing a "God of the gaps," doesn't Russell say to BioLogos: "Wait a minute; Behe's position, *as far as the question of divine activity goes*, need not be any different from mine -- Behe has granted that God might intervene in evolution in ways such that his direct activity cannot be detected by scientific instruments -- and you've never attacked *me* for championing God of the gaps! You're being unfair, BioLogos!" Just *one* statement like that, just *one* publically prominent critical admonition from one leading TE to another, would do a great deal to convince ID people that not *all* TEs are unreasonable partisans or their implacable enemies! But where can I find such statements? I've looked high and low. And yes, I know that Ted Davis has been very fair in listening to ID people and trying very hard not to set up ID as a straw man position to be easily knocked down, and I salute him for that -- he's "the noblest of all the TEs," to paraphrase a great poet. Still, his activity, though very constructive, has been mainly to lay out (with care and accuracy and admirable scholarly demeanor) the various ID and TE positions, rather than to directly criticize other TEs when they are being intellectually unjust. (To be fair to Ted, though, his present position makes it difficult to speak with full force; you can't tell your boss -- in public -- that he is simply wrong about X or Y, and I wouldn't expect him to do that; but a freelancer like Russell or Barr, who has no institutional obligations to BioLogos, or to the "consensus of biologists," etc., can be as outspoken as he wishes. It would be nice to hear, from some TE sometime, that instead of TE being 100% right and ID being 0% right, that TE is maybe only 67% right, and ID is 33% right as well.) 4. What Gregory doesn't see is that ID people are against "Darwinism" in *both* meanings. Construed as an ideology, it's anti-Christian (as Falk admits), and ID people are as against it as Falk is. But even construed as a scientific theory (which the term has very often meant, in the history of its usage), ID people are against it, and here they differ from BioLogos. And they are against it for two reasons: (1) it's a poor natural-cause explanation for the evolutionary process, i.e., it's weak science; (2) it has implications -- even outside its ideological misuse as an overtly atheistic philosophy -- which many ID people (thinking in their private capacity as Christians) believe make it incompatible with traditional creation doctrine. And what Falk does not see, and what Gregory apparently does not see, is that even though BioLogos does not endorse Darwin's personal views, or the personal views of Mayr, Gould, etc., by endorsing neo-Darwinism it is saying that God acted in a certain way in nature to bring about his ends -- he employed random mutations plus natural selection. And once you endorse that combination -- RM + NS and Christian creation doctrine together, you are obliged to go from the scientific level to the philosophical level and show that those two things -- creation doctrine and Darwinian mechanism -- are logically compatible. The *theological* (as opposed to scientific) dispute between ID and BioLogos-TE is precisely over this compatibility. Another way of putting this is: as *scientists*, all that the ID people are interested in proving is that RM + NS could not have generated what we observe; design would be necessary. But as *Christians* (where they are Christian), ID people think that the means of creation proposed by neo-Darwinism is incompatible with traditional, orthodox understandings of creation, both Protestant and Catholic. So Gregory's constant charges of confusion are unwarranted; when the different aspects of the subject are carefully sorted out, as I've done above, ID people are not inconsistent at all. 5. The only charge that Gregory could reasonably make is that the term "Darwinism," because of its ambiguity, is inflammatory, and therefore should be dropped. Well, I've just conceded that point, and suggested that ID people should perhaps consider replacing "Christian Darwinism" with "Christian neo-Darwinism" to create a more descriptive and non-polemical term. And StephenB is mulling over my proposal. I'm not in favor of insulting TEs gratuitously. And I want the debate to be over metaphysical positions, not over mere words. If dropping "Darwinism" would cause Falk and Venema and Giberson and others to open up and specify how they see God as acting through a neo-Darwinian process, it would be well worth the price to me. I'm willing to give it a go. But will the folks at BioLogos reciprocate? Past history suggests they won't, but will avoid theoretical clarity in favor of cautious obscurantism, and wlll blame their obscurantism on Wesley or divine mystery or anything other than their own lack of will to face the intellectual options head-on, as a rational theologian should. But I'm willing to give it another try.Timaeus

November 20, 2012

November

11

Nov

20

20

2012

07:54 AM

7

07

54

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Thanks to StephenB for #57 in clarifying what he meant. I must admit I regret being the first to raise the name of Darrel Falk and ‘Darwinism’ as I’ve discovered over the past 10 years engaging with IDists that ‘Darwinism’ means too many different things and has become a bogey man in the discourse. nullasalus' comments and questions to Timaeus in #48 are more interesting and provocative. In fact, I think he’s got the problem with Timaeus’ ‘loss of nerve’ comment bang-on. Perhaps Timaeus will offer feedback at some point. “I don’t think the belief you attribute to TEs…is accurate.” “what exactly are you asking for?” “TE replies tend to be far more open ended than you think.” “why evolutionary theory gets ‘special treatment’ from TEs: because it has to do, in a more direct way, with human life.” “you’re right that no scientific theory ever says, ‘and then a miracle occurred’. But that’s different from a necessary silence with regards to God’s intentions and interventions or the lack of such.” “my own view – and I think the view of Barr, and at least some other TEs – is that science is actually radically limited insofar as having much to say about these things.” – nullasalus In regard to insisting that ‘Darwinism’ is a ‘natural scientific theory,’ this position is self-contradictory and self-defeating for Big-ID. First, it is true that this is Dembski’s definition of Darwinism as it has been for many before him. So you choose to reject ‘Darwinism’ as a ‘natural scientific theory.’ But the real problem most of you have with ‘Darwinism’ is the ‘ideology,’ not the ‘scientific theory.’ Second, the ideology then that you have a problem with in ‘Darwinism’ is the ideology of ‘naturalism’ (which is Timaeus’ offense to TEs in this thread). But you can’t challenge ‘naturalism’ as an ideology in ‘Darwinism’ if all you’re interested in is challenging ‘Darwinism’ as a ‘natural scientific theory.’ And of course, you *are* interested in challenging ‘naturalism,’ aren’t you? So, when do you stop your focus on natural science and begin your focus on ideology? Surely most of you are insisting that ‘Darwinian evolution’ is actually natural science (special, as StephenB calls it) intertwined with ideology (general, according to StephenB), aren’t you? It is the smuggling-in of naturalism and chance-based ideologies about the OoL that gets the hair on the back of your necks on end, isn’t it? Here’s what needs to happen. Reject the historical definition of ‘Darwinism’ as ‘natural science-only.’ Iow, reject the meaning of *some* scientists in history who proclaim ‘Darwinism’ is simply a natural scientific theory. It is not; it is ideology, pure and simple, just as is Marxism or behaviorism or scientism. This will free you up to explore ideology when it is ideology and science when it is science. That is what BioLogos is in the process of digesting. So far, the IDM seems to be a very confused, mixed-bag, divided tent on the topic. I’m not going to go so far as saying I agree with Darrel Falk on this, but he is clearly more accurate to describe ‘(neo)Darwinism’ as ideology than as ‘purely natural science.’ Ototopic, I simply don’t think Timaeus has an accurate view about the majority of TEs. First of all, the majority of TEs are Roman Catholics and Orthodox (and Jews and Muslims and Baha'is), not evangelical Protestants. He calls these volumes of people ‘generic’ or ‘minimalist’ TEs, but doesn’t count their voice when he says “most TE’s.” Second, Timaeus hand-picks 7 or 8 targets (Barr, Ken Miller, Collins, Giberson, Ayala – whose ‘T’ is in question, Lamoureux, Polkinghorne), sometimes he’d go up to 10-12 names, and harps again and again and again about their unwillingness to allow supernatural explanations as a ‘scientific’ proof of ‘divine action in evolution.’ Don't forget, what Timaeus desires is "accurate thinking about divine action in evolution." But like nullasalus says: “what exactly are you asking for?” It is purely negative apologetics to say TE's have 'lost their nerve' because Timaeus himself offers no positive natural scientific counter-argument on behalf of Big-ID. Third, Timaeus has the annoying tendency to speak in superlatives and use extreme language (never, never, never! - am I the only one who notices this?!). The fact is that *some* TEs, including those at ASA, *have* and *do* think critically about ‘naturalism’ – they don’t subscribe to it as a default position for understanding the universe and our place in it. Naturalism and MN These are not the push-overs and mentally backward simpletons that Timaeus makes them out to be. Indeed, (with just a quick search) BioLogos has critical words for ‘naturalism’ also, if only IDists would pay attention: BioLogos Naturalism They may not have yet formed a clear or coherent statement on naturalism (just as they removed their definition of 'Darwinism' in summer 2011, due to pressure from commenters there), but they’re also a lot younger than the IDM and much is still to come with their Templeton funding renewed and a new President soon to come. Being impatient with them and demanding them to speak of ‘natural scientifically detectable supernatural intervention in evolution’ is a bit much, isn’t it? I’ve asked many times for a proper distinction between ‘naturalism’ and the responsible practice of ‘natural science’ and found few responses, across the TE/ID divide. The main problem with ‘naturalism’ as I see it is that USAmerican philosophy has been horned into the MN vs. MN dichotomy by evangelical ethicist Paul de Vries and by ASA and NCSE, etc. P. Johnson was right that ‘naturalism’ without a qualifier is nevertheless still an ideological problem. But as I said above, there are some IDists who have even ‘lost their nerve’ enough to propose naturalistic ‘design/Design’! The key issue here is ideology and the limits of scientific explanation, which is why my questions to Timaeus about Big-ID’s supposed scientificity in contrast with openly admitting it is properly a science, philosophy, theology/worldview dialogue topic were asked. His response was less than satisfactory because it's a sometimes 'science-only,' sometimes philosophy and/or theology approach, depending wholly on Timaeus' personal definition of Big-ID, which is not held by IDM leaders. That Timaeus has not the nerve to defend the exclusive natural scientificity of Big-ID is a serious problem for his marginal position in the IDM, which makes sense of why he wishes to speak of Darwinism as simply a natural scientific theory. It seems that Timaeus’ claims once again have shot way over the top. In my view, if you as an ID community are honestly seek some kind of reconciliation or common ground with TEs, it will not happen simply by asking them to move closer to ID (e.g. Russell needs to side with Behe). You’ve already lost that argument over the past decade. Gingerich’s Big-ID vs. small-id does that by itself because ID theory as currently framed will not - by fiat - discuss the designer/Designer as the main topic of interest regarding OoL, OoBI and (most recently) human origins. Indeed, a third way, a new dialogue space in which to move forward together is what is most needed. That is what I am most interested in contributing to and discussing. Insulting people with words they don't use to describe themselves is not helpful in this regard. Gregory p.s. perhaps "Christian Darwinian Evolutionists" or "Christian Darwinian evolutionary theorists/biologists" would be more accurate, but then again, BioLogos is against 'evolutionism' as ideology, just as ASA is against 'total evolution.' So there doesn't really seem to be an appropriate concept among these options that isn't going to be taken as an insult by one side. Personally, I think you folks use CND pejoratively, which doesn't seem conducive to fruitful dialogue. But do you really want that anyway, if all it means is 'adapt our IDist pov'?Gregory

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

11:45 PM

11

11

45

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

I want to heartily agree with your terminology StephenB. It makes too much sense. Unfortunately it is not very good form to define others' beliefs for them. They have chosen the label, and they have defined it. If they choose to define it as something which doesn't make any sense, well, that's their prerogative. They'll just have to go down with that ship.tragic mishap

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

10:22 PM

10

10

22

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Timaeus @60, you make good point. Good arguments can be made for both approaches. On the one hand, the term "Christian Darwinism (CD) provides a little more balance and symmetry, which is useful in comparing it with (ID) and (TE), and in dramatizing the difference between the teachings of Christ and Darwin. On the other hand, the term "Christian Neo-Darwinism" (CND) tunes the point to a finer edge and, equally important, closes that infernal world-view escape clause. OK, I have waffled long enough. On an enthusiasm scale of 1-10, I give CND (Christian Neo-Darwinism) a 9.50 and CD (Christian Darwinism) a 9.25. That could change subject to more feedback.StephenB

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

06:42 PM

6

06

42

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

ian4851: I don't think "Deistic" is the adjective you want. Deism historically postulated a designing, planning God, not one who left things to chance. Indeed, Deists tended toward "clockwork" thinking about nature, and thus had more like an ID than a TE mentality. Also, to the extent that evolution is front-loaded or fine-tuned, it's not chance-directed. Actually, we have a living example of a "Deistic evolutionist" in Michael Denton, whose account of evolution is full of fine-tuning and front-loading, and leaves very little to chance. Denton self-consciously opposes his model to the Darwinian. And on the theological side, since Denton equates the designer with God, but does not call himself a Christian, and since his God does not interact directly with nature after the moment of the Big Bang, "Deistic" describes his thought perfectly. I would agree with StephenB that "Christian Darwinist" is a good name for the largest group of TEs. The majority of TE leaders are from the life sciences (paleontology, biology, biochemistry, etc.) and they accept neo-Darwinian biology as essentially correct, so "Darwinian" is a good fit. They are also Christian, so obviously the adjective fits. "Christian Darwinism" -- provided one understands Darwinism as a scientific theory and not as an ideology or surrogate religion -- is exactly what they teach. Christian Darwinism is a much more precise name for them than "theistic evolutionism." "Theistic" is a broad term which can encompass Jews and Muslims (and others), whereas every single person who self-identifies as a TE is, to my knowledge, Christian. And "evolution" is a broad term which covers many different versions of "transformism" -- of which the Darwinian version is only one. But most of the TEs are ardent (neo-)Darwinians; certainly none of them are openly *anti*-Darwinian in their biology. So the replacement of "evolution" with "Darwinism" is sensible. For the same reason, "evolutionary creationism" is not a precise term for the usual TE position. "Evolutionary" is again too broad, and "creationism" again could apply to Jews and Muslims. "Christian Darwinism" is thus pretty accurate. But if Falk and his friends want to make a big deal about non-scientific overtones of "Darwinism", it's easy to adjust: the TEs believe in "Christian neo-Darwinism." No one confuses neo-Darwinism with an ideology, so the TEs would have no legitimate complaint about that label. So maybe, StephenB, we should start calling them "Christian neo-Darwinists." It's clumsier, but if it removes an excuse for the TEs to quarrel over mere words, and still identifies their real position accurately, it might be to our advantage in the long run. What do you think?Timaeus

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

05:26 PM

5

05

26

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Another possible label for the chance-directed model could be "Deistic Evolution". Certainly much more accurate than "Theistic Evolution". Still allows front-loading & fine-tuning etc, but no "interference" or "violation".ian4851

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

03:01 PM

3

03

01

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

It would seem that the best way to make that distinction is to label the goal-directed model “Theistic Evolution” and to label the chance-directed model “Christian Darwinism.”

heheMung

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

02:56 PM

2

02

56

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Tiimaeus @52 has done an admirable job of explaining the historical context of Darwinism, so little more needs to be said about it. Neo-Darwinism does, indeed, argue for non-teleological evolution in the name of science. The philosophical presumptions are built into the scientific claims. Some might wonder why I fuss over the meaning of “Darwinism” so much. If Darrell Falk wants to appropriate his own private definition of “Darwinism,” which he clearly does, what’s the harm? Why should we insist on a standardized meaning of the term? I think that such a question would deserve an answer, and I am surprised no one has raised it. We should recognize that, in a broad sense, theorists can look at the relationship between God and evolution from two different perspectives: On the one hand, many orthodox Christians believe that God purposefully designed evolution to unfold in such a way that it would infallibly produce a specified result, namely homo-sapiens. In this context, we use the traditional term Theistic Evolution or Goal directed evolution. Play the tape of life over again, and you get a similar result. On the other hand, the vast majority contemporary “Theistic Evolutionists” conceive evolution differently, holding fast to the non-teleological, radically contingent, neo-Darwinian model, which means that chance, not a goal-directed process, shapes the final result. Hence, Christian Darwinism is the idea that God gave nature the “freedom to create itself," and, by extension, allowed a neo-Darwinian process to search around aimlessly and produce whatever it happens to produce. Play the tape of life over again, and you will get a different result. Since these two positions can be summarized and understood to be contrary notions, we should, if we are going to used abbreviated terms, find phrases that accurately reflect the differences between them. Only then can we differentiate between those who posit a goal-directed, ID-friendly conception of evolution, from those who posit a chance-driven, atheist-friendly concept of evolution. It would seem that the best way to make that distinction is to label the goal-directed model “Theistic Evolution” and to label the chance-directed model “Christian Darwinism.” Typically, Christian Darwinists do not want that label assigned to them precisely because it is so irksomely and devastatingly accurate. They want to remain in a linguistic fog so they can have it both ways, using the rhetoric of purposeful Theism (God is calling the shots) while arguing on behalf of purposelessness Darwinism (chance is calling the shots). When asked to clarify, they respond by saying that chance does, indeed, call the shots, but God knew which shots chance would call----as if God’s knowledge of chance would make it any less chancy---- as if knowing about the undirected-ness of a process could give it direction----as if ontological chance could be explained away as epistemological chance. The way they dance and squirm when someone raises these issues is a wonder to behold. Even so, if Christian Darwinists can get enough people to call them Theistic Evolutionists, everyone will assume that their position is reasonable. After all, the title assigned to them sounds reasonable, even though they are, by any reasonable definition, Christian Darwiinists. It is always important to call things by their right name even if those who fall into a rightly defined category would prefer not to be identified for what they are. This is doubly true since Christian Darwinists seek to convert Christians to Darwinism in the name of Theistic Evolution.StephenB

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

02:06 PM

2

02

06

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

The 'special treatment of evolution' and all the other militant atheists' nonsense, Barry. The Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was addressing that theme, if somewhat elliptically. In case, anyone is interested and hasn't read it, here it is (a kind of resume of this blog in terms of its aims, it seems): http://www.zenit.org/article-35919?l=english Incidentally, why the term, 'non-local', when it's also non-temporal? Why not, 'non loco-temporal'? The concept of non-locality, alone, must drive them nuts, but non-temporal as well might completely unhinge them?Axel

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

09:36 AM

9

09

36

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

I don't believe there's any essential difference in those categories, Timaeus. The pretentions are and will remain pretentions because there is no way to reconcile their competing priorities. It has nothing to do with how smart or "theoretically gifted" or "philosophically sophisticated" anyone is. It's a problem with no solution but to drop one or the other. You must either give up God as the Creator or give up naturalistic, Darwinian evolution. That has always been perfectly clear to the vast majority of Christians, something which TEs must refuse to acknowledge or cease being TEs.tragic mishap

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

09:23 AM

9

09

23

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

tragic: I believe that your explanation makes sense for *some* TEs, especially the biologists, biochemists, and geologists, such as frequently post on BioLogos, on the ASA talk forum, in the ASA journal, etc. But there are other TEs for whom that explanation does not quite fit: Barr, Russell, Polkinghorne, and a few others. These others are mostly physicists and astronomers, and, with the exception of Ted Davis, seem to be largely uninvolved in BioLogos or in ASA activities; they seem to be individualists who are somewhat aloof from TE as a culture-war party. I see them as a little less dogmatic about "naturalism in origins," and I'm wondering (a) why their affirmation or at least entertaining of direct divine action in evolution is muted as much as it is -- tamed, as it were, by their placing of divine activity "out of sight" (under quantum indeterminacy, for example); and (b) why they condone -- by not speaking out against it -- the dogmatic naturalism of the TE biologists and others that I've mentioned. Surely, if TE has any pretensions to being a serious intellectual movement, the intellectually serious and talented ones have a sort of "party duty" to rein in the excesses of their less theoretically gifted allies. Yet I don't see that happening. Can anyone point me to a place where, say, Russell or Polkinghorne or Barr have written book reviews of the works of Collins, Falk, Giberson, or Ken Miller, pointing out their defects, and calling upon those writers to adopt more theologically orthodox and philosophically sophisticated positions regarding theology and science?Timaeus

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

06:28 AM

6

06

28

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

I think the obvious answer to Timaeus' question is that TEs are Darwinian naturalists who are trying to sell their point of view to the average evangelical. In doing so they offer meaningless speculations about God's creative action to sugarcoat their point of view and trick evangelicals into siding with them. As Neil Rickert revealed in #2, it is entirely political, and everyone paying attention knows it. They are out and out lying to people to get their "vote". They believe evangelicals are stupid enough to fall for it. Their real problem is evangelicals are not as stupid as they think, not, as Francis Collins suggested, that "theistic evolution" isn't a snazzy enough name.tragic mishap

November 19, 2012

November

11

Nov

19

19

2012

06:01 AM

6

06

01

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Mung and StephenB: Guys, guys! There is no need to speculate about what Falk meant. His comments about not being a Darwinist are found on the BioLogos website, in his reply to Dembski, in the Southern Baptist Views series. As I said above, in 39, by "Darwinism" Falk means something ideological, i.e., "scientistic" interpretations of science that Darwin as an individual held, but which are not (in Falk's view) justified by Darwin's science itself. When Falk says he is not a Darwinist, it means that he does not hold to these personal interpretations of Darwin. But he completely holds to "random mutations plus natural selection" -- the neo-Darwinian formulation of Darwin's insights. Whether or not Falk is a "Christian Darwinist" depends on what "Darwinist" is understood to mean. If it means, "one who accepts neo-Darwinian evolution" then Falk (along with most other TEs) is indeed a Christian Darwinist. If it means "one who accepts Darwin's personal opinions about God, the nature of nature, the meaning of evolution, etc." then Falk is not a Christian Darwinist. StephenB is using the first definition of Darwinism, and therefore his characterization of Falk logically follows. Falk would object to the characterization, for the reasons given above. So whose usage should we side with? I look at these things historically. Historically, the idea that "Darwinism" is some sort of ideological add-on to a purely scientific theory is simply inaccurate. "Darwinism" (except when it was qualified, as in "social Darwinism") regularly referred to the scientific theory put forward by Darwin, in particular, the emphasis on natural selection as the main explanation for evolution. Late 19th-century and early 20th-century discussions of "Darwinism" by biologists and geologists show this. So also, "neo-Darwinism" -- both the earlier view (late 19th century) by that name, and the later view (1930s-1940s), known also as "The Modern Synthesis" -- referred to a scientific theory, not an ideological perspective. The TEs at BioLogos and in the ASA (not counting Ted Davis, one of the few TEs who knows anything substantial about scientific history) have promoted a revisionist history of terms in which "Darwinism" is a scientistic add-on to "Darwin's theory," so that they can say, "Darwin's theory good, Darwinism bad." But that is not the original usage. That's why, against Falk (and his defender here, Gregory), I side with StephenB. StephenB's usage is more historically accurate. I don't like it when historically uninformed people make up their own language. It just leads to communicative chaos, and we end up arguing about terms (as Gregory loves to do), instead of arguing about the substance to which the terms refer. If people stuck to established meanings, instead of doing "science history at the Improv," we could get down to the nitty-gritty much faster. Part of the problem, of course, is that most TEs are scientists, and most scientists do not spend very much time thinking about the history of their own discipline. They are trained to regard older writings as outdated by the progress of science, and the thought of reading anything more than about 30 years old, certainly anything 100 years old, would strike them as quaint. The fraction of living biologists who have read Darwin's *Origin* from cover to cover is, I would wager, far less than 5%. And the number who have studied up on the history of evolutionary theory, reading original 19th-century and early 20th-century sources, is probably smaller. Thus, if you want to learn the history of evolutionary theory, the last person you should go to (with very rare exceptions, such as Gould) is a working biologist. You will learn much more from a historian of science. And the TE-biologists are no different from atheist biologists in this regard. Thus, I don't take anything biologist-TEs say about Darwin, or Darwinism, or the history of evolutionary theory, or the history and philosophy of science generally, with any seriousness. They know far less about such things than any good historian of biology, and far less than ID leaders such as Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells and Michael Denton, whose historical knowledge of evolutionary theory is quite impressive. Darrel Falk's ad hoc use of "Darwinism" can be safely ignored. In terms of scientific theory, he is a Darwinist, in fact, he is a classic neo-Darwinist of the most straight-arrow, party-line kind.Timaeus

November 18, 2012

November

11

Nov

18

18

2012

06:41 PM

6

06

41

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

A Darwinist, by ID definitions, is someone who believes in Darwin’s GENERAL Theory of Evolution.

So, StephenB, When someone says, "I believe in Darwinian evolution," how do you decide whether they are referring to (a) his General Theory (b) his Special Theory, or both. Maybe they are not using the "ID definition." Behe believes in common descent, afiak, another of Darwin's theories. It seems to me there is a bit of room for ambiguity here. But for sure, I support the reduction of ambiguity. What else do you have from Falk?

According to “Darwinism” (Darwin’s GENERAL Theory), naturalistic processes can drive the entire evolutionary process through all taxonomic levels from beginning to end. That is what Falk and Gibberson, both of whom are Darwinists, believe. Behe, who is not a Darwinist, asserts that these mechanisms cannot take evolution through that whole journey.

But his says nothing about whether such processes are guided or not. When you talk about Darwin's SPECIAL theory and you say you accept it, does that mean you accept unguided natural processes? p.s. I'll readily admit you are probably more up-to-date on what these folks think or write than I am. I think I've been to BioLogos only once or twice, lol.Mung

November 18, 2012

November

11

Nov

18

18

2012

04:01 PM

4

04

01

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Mung

Do you think Michael Behe believes in Darwinian evolution?

No. According to "Darwinism" (Darwin's GENERAL Theory), naturalistic processes can drive the entire evolutionary process through all taxonomic levels from beginning to end. That is what Falk and Gibberson, both of whom are Darwinists, believe. Behe, who is not a Darwinist, asserts that these mechanisms cannot take evolution through that whole journey.

"Do you think he considers himself to be a Darwinist?"

Not at all. He knows that he is not.

"ID proponents acknowledge that Darwinian mechanisms operate within a limited scope…"

Right. That is Darwin's SPECIAL Theory. You, I, and most ID proponents hold that position.

"Does that make them all Darwinists?"

No. A Darwinist, by ID definitions, is someone who believes in Darwin's GENERAL Theory of Evolution.

"Most ID proponents that I know of, including staunch Creationists, allow some role for Darwinian evolution."

Right. Count me and everyone at this site as a supporter of Darwin's Special Theory. On the other hand, no ID proponent supports Darwin's General Theory and most TEs do. There is plenty of evidence to support Darwin's Special Theory; there is no evidence at all to support Darwin's General Theory. Where ID proponents disagree is on the subject of common descent (whether total macro evolution even happened at all). Bornagain77, Cornelius Hunter, myself and several others doubt it. GPuccio, VJT, Behe and others think that it did. However, we all agree, both supporters and deniers of common descent, that naturalistic processes cannot drive the process.

It all boils down to “what makes one a Darwinist” and what does it mean to ‘believe’ in Darwinian evolution.

Right.StephenB

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

04:08 PM

4

04

08

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

I need for you and Mung to acknowledge that his public dedication to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is at variance with his statement that “he is not a Darwinist.”

Why on earth should I feel the need to do so when I have just a few moments ago stated that I could see the possibility of a distinction? Do you think Michael Behe believes in Darwinian evolution? Does that make him a 'Darwinist' in your opinion? Do you think he considers himself to be a Darwinist?

ID proponents acknowledge that Darwinian mechanisms operate within a limited scope...

Does that make them all Darwinists? Most ID proponents that I know of, including staunch Creationists, allow some role for Darwinian evolution. It all boils down to "what makes one a Darwinist" and what does it mean to 'believe' in Darwinian evolution.Mung

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

02:53 PM

2

02

53

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Timaeus, Pardon the late replies. Always takes a while to respond to you, since your comments tend to be depthful and well thought out, so I can really cut things short most of the time.

Now, note what you *don’t* hear scientists of any camp, including TEs, saying. You don’t hear them saying: “As far as science is concerned, rainfall is caused by wholly natural causes, but there may also be some divine special action, done subtly under the cover of quantum indeterminacy, by which God makes sure that certain molecules evaporate rather than others, or makes raindrops fall more intensely upon certain places.” You’ll never hear Barr say that, or Miller, or Venema, or Conway Morris, etc. They never go out of their way to “fuzz” the question of supernatural versus natural causality when the event is rainfall. They believe that rainfall occurs only through natural causes. And presumably they believe the same is true of orbiting planets, lightning strikes, the growth of plants, etc.

I don't think the belief you attribute to TEs - at least those TEs who hold that God can work through quantum indeterminacy, etc, with regards to evolution - is accurate. Barr, for example (still haven't gotten the article - get with it, First Things!) doesn't hedge his words and say that God only may have foreknown and preordained events with regards to evolution, but with regards to all things, period. He focuses on evolution generally because, what a surprise... that tends to be the topic at hand. I also think there's problems with your comparison. First: there's not really anything you could expect a TE, even a TE who believed God could orchestrate or intervene in a rainfall, to amend with regards to your description. Here it is again:

We say that water evaporates when the molecules obtain enough energy to escape from the liquid state, and then they rise in the vaporous state, lose energy in the cooler air, condense into water droplets forming clouds, which then break up, with gravity drawing the water down again. Or something like that. The point is that we postulate natural causes only.

To illustrate what I mean: it's trivial to demonstrate that the process you described could be orchestrated and arranged by an intelligent agent. If you've ever made noodles, congratulations - you've evaporated water, created steam, etc. Yes, it's a microcosm compared to rain, but notice that the description of that process as you put it makes no mention - positive or negative - about the intervention of an intelligent agent, despite it not only being possible, but probable and common. So what exactly are you asking for? Especially when, even if God were to intervene in rainfall, it's not clear that any part of the process you so described would need to be overruled by God. Another problem with your reply is that, I think, the TE replies tend to be far more open ended than you think. Are you imagining that 'intervention in the evolutionary process' that TEs envision is to be cashed out almost exclusively in terms of, say... mutations? Because if so, I see no reason to think that. After all, environment plays a major role in even orthodox evolutionary history - a chance rainfall at point X may help determine which species ultimately thrives or perishes. As a result, whenever I see TEs talking about God intervening in the course of natural history, I take a broader interpretation of their words that you may - I see them as imagining God may be intervening in, really, absolutely any part of nature, or foreseeing/determining any part of nature. God doesn't have to limit Himself to mutations. Again, that leaves me confused with regards to your move here. Finally, there's one more reason I think we tend not to see TEs discussing these things: because rainfall qua rainfall has nothing to do with the living (I'm talking about rainfall in the very abstracted sense you discussed here), and people tend to only think about God in relation to the living. And by that I mean people, period, atheists and theists. I think the end of Genesis 1-10, in context, would baffle most people nowadays. God declaring as 'good' a universe which, at that point, was devoid of life? Madness. That last part would probably go some way towards explaining why evolutionary theory gets 'special treatment' from TEs: because it has to do, in a more direct way, with human life. Rainfall qua rainfall? Orbit of planets qua orbit of planets? Not very interesting unless it starts affecting life, particularly human life. That, by the way, applies to ID as well.

Modern science, as understood by both groups, is supposed to explain all events in the universe in terms of natural causes (in particular, efficient causes) alone.

Not to the exclusion of other causes. Rather, if a scientist thinks that, they've stopped doing science. What's more, you're right that no scientific theory ever says, 'and then a miracle occurred'. But that's different from a necessary silence with regards to God's intentions and interventions or the lack of such. I think it doubly gets difficult when we start talking about the guided nature that Barr in particular at least partially offers up as a way God could be at work in evolutionary theory. That view, I think, is entirely legitimate, and entirely outside the realm of science, at once. This gets into a messier area about when scientific explanations end and non-scientific explanations begin, but my own view - and I think the view of Barr, and at least some other TEs - is that science is actually radically limited insofar as having much to say about these things. To say that natural event X took place, even likely natural event X, is not to say 'and therefore God played no role / intended nothing here'. Your response may be, 'Okay, but it at least makes God superfluous. There's no need to posit God whatsoever here.', but that's where I'd disagree. No reasons *prompted by consideration of likely natural event X itself*, sure. Considerations from philosophical or broader metaphysical or even broader scientific sources? That's where the story changes.

Do you see now why I am having trouble with the “science vs. metaphysics” distinction that you (and others) keep making? If “metaphysical agnosticism” about supernatural causation applies to evolution, it applies to *every other causal explanation in science*; yet TEs *never* apply it except in situations where scientific accounts of origins clash with traditional Christian accounts.

Well, I do, but hopefully you'll understand my reply on this front. As usual, I understand entirely when you say, 'But the view of you and the TEs isn't the view of Darwin and Coyne and...' And you know my reply there.nullasalus

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

02:42 PM

2

02

42

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Gregory:

Obviously I’m so naive I couldn’t be intelligent at all! =P

No, you are naive if you believe that people do not distort the meanings of words in order to create a desired effect.

Could you please provide a link to Falk’s supposed “I believe in Darwinian evolution” statement, StephenB?

Actually, its a "we," not an "I," because he co-authored a piece with Karl Gibberson. The exact words are that they "believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution." However, before I go to the trouble and provide the total context, I need for you and Mung to acknowledge that his public dedication to Darwin's Theory of Evolution is at variance with his statement that "he is not a Darwinist." Otherwise, there is no reason for me to bother with it since you will say that it doesn't mean anything.StephenB

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

02:11 PM

2

02

11

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Mung: "If ‘Darwinist’ is so narrowly defined as a person who believes in Darwinian evolution you might have a point. But I seriously doubt that’s how Falk is using the term when he says he is not a Darwinist." When ID proponents use the word "Darwinist," they refer to unguided, naturalistic, chance-driven, Darwinian evolution. I know of no one in our camp who uses the word any other way.StephenB

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

01:57 PM

1

01

57

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Gregory

Sorry StephenB, ‘Christian Darwininists’ is a hogwash word, which I won’t dignify.

Notice that in both your defense of Falk and in your critique of my comment, you didn't even ask for a definition. This means, I gather, that for you, as with Falk, there is no significant relationship between ID's meaning of the word "Darwinist" and the truth of falsehood of any claim that someone might fit that definition. In any case, I can readily understand why you would not want to make the distinction between a Classical Theistic Evolutionist and a contemporary Christian Darwinist who poses as the former. Clarity is not exactly on your side or on the side of the Christian Darwinists that you defend.StephenB

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

01:25 PM

1

01

25

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Obviously I'm so naive I couldn't be intelligent at all! =P I agree with Mung #43. Also to note the dates: 2009-->2012. Could you please provide a link to Falk's supposed "I believe in Darwinian evolution" statement, StephenB? Thanks.Gregory

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

01:03 PM

1

01

03

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, Personally, I can see how the two statements could be construed as non-contradictory. If 'Darwinist' is so narrowly defined as a person who believes in Darwinian evolution you might have a point. But I seriously doubt that's how Falk is using the term when he says he is not a Darwinist.Mung

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

12:51 PM

12

12

51

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Gregory

ID culture warriors, playing in the background the ‘cdesign proponentsists’ tune, aka Big-ID, don’t trust him and won’t accept his direct words. Not a surprise!

How naive you are. Here is what Falk says when he co-authors books and writes in USA today: "I believe in Darwinian evolution" --- Darrell Falk. Here is what Falk says when he doing damage control after having been busted. "I am not a Darwinist." -- Darrell FalkStephenB

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

12:40 PM

12

12

40

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Timaeus, lol. I was content to be thought of as a neo-id'ist. =p Small c creationism in a not-even-cheap tuxedo? But be my guest. I do confess, however, that anything I learned from studying human (and non-human) designers, how and why they design, I would be sorely tempted to try to apply to BIG ID id. I certainly see no reason why BIG ID ID cannot study designers. I encourage it.Mung

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

12:22 PM

12

12

22

PM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Mung (re your 35, and Gregory's response to you at 37): Shall I tell him, or will you? :-)Timaeus

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

11:58 AM

11

11

58

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Re: 36 I take Darrel Falk at his word when he says that he is not a Darwinist. But by "Darwinist" he means something ideological. By "Darwinist" StephenB means one who holds to a specific biological theory of origins. And Darrel Falk holds unrepentantly to that theory of origins -- whether it's called "Darwinism" or something else. And ID people reject that theory of origins. So Falk's declaration changes nothing. He still disagrees with ID people over exactly the same issues that he has always disagreed with them on. He thinks random mutations plus natural selection can get you from bacterium to man, without any special divine action needed. ID people disagree. And so, it seems, does TE Robert Russell. That's the difference I'm trying to explore.Timaeus

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

11:49 AM

11

11

49

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

It's nice to hear from Gregory that two scientists no one here has heard of believe in God. Gregory, I can point you to two old ladies in my town who believe in God. So what? My claim was not that TEs did not believe in God. My claim was that TEs believe that everyday events happen by purely natural causation. Unless you have statements from your two scientists on the question of natural causation, your mention of them is irrelevant. And I notice that when challenged on Gingerich, you backed off -- doubtless because you don't know his writing well enough to speak for his view on natural causation. The facts are plain: TEs overwhelmingly favor natural causation for most of the events that have ever occurred in the universe. The only exceptions most them make are: (1) A few hundred, or a few score, or a few dozen, or just a few (sometimes as few as one, the Resurrection) miracles that they accept on the testimony of the Bible (when they aren't casting radical doubt on the reliability of the Bible, which is often enough); (2) Some other miracles which God may have done, out of compassion, since Biblical times -- healings and rescuing people from perils, etc. Note that *all* of these exceptions relate to the God-man relationship. None of them involve actions where only God and nature are involved. Where only God and nature are involved, where no revelatory purpose would be served by special divine action, the TEs overwhelmingly favor purely naturalistic causation. No TE thinks that God normally pushes the planets around, or steers each raindrop down, or manually stimulates each plant to grow. They think that his default and by far most common mode of activity in nature is through natural laws. These are empirical facts about TE belief, distilled from reading hundreds of thousands of words of TE books, articles, blog columns, internet comments, and private e-mails. If anyone thinks otherwise, he hasn't read enough TE material (or has a treasure-trove of TE material containing different views, which has been kept hidden from the world). The intellectual problem I've raised, which you clearly aren't the slightest bit interested in dealing with -- but then, when do you ever stick to the question being discussed? -- is why *some* TEs (the minority) seriously entertain the possibility that God might actively steer the evolutionary process. For one who believes that God's default mode of interaction with nature is exclusively through natural causes, the only reason that I can think of for suggesting that supernatural action is involved in steering evolution is a suspicion that natural laws wouldn't be enough. That is, someone who thinks that God is perhaps guiding evolution to produce man, must have doubts that random mutation plus natural selection alone can do it. Now Dennis Venema seems to have no doubt that authentically random mutations plus natural selection can do it, but apparently Robert Russell does. So there is a cleavage among the TEs. All are rah-rah champions of naturalism, when ID or creationist people are in the room, and listening to them. But when they are doing their own thinking, outside of the culture-war ethos, in the privacy of their studies, some of them have doubts. This is an interesting fact, and to my mind, one which gives grounds for hope. If there is ever to be reconciliation between ID and TE, it will be a reconciliation in which people like Russell open up negotiations with people like Behe. Only a TE capable of doubting the sufficiency of stochastic mechanisms will possess the necessary intellectual flexibility necessary for really listening to ID arguments. But of course, Russell or any other TE would pay a large political price for even being fair to, let alone agreeing with, any ID claims. The other TEs would swamp him with a barrage of BioLogos columns and private e-mails, pleading with him to stand solidly for "good science" and not be seduced by "God of the gaps" ideas of divine action. Especially the TE biologists, who are still trapped in a combination of physics envy and 19th-century mechanistic thinking, would do so. So it would take a lot of courage on behalf of the daring TE. But it would advance the cause of theology-science dialogue, by breaking down artificial barriers which prevent accurate thinking about divine action in evolution. These are the questions and ideas I'm raising, Gregory. And the purpose of this column was to air my ideas, not yours. If you aren't interested in my ideas, so be it. But if you don't want to really engage with them, if you want to beat the same tired old drum about design detection and the social sciences, I wish you'd beat that drum somewhere else, because the noise of it is interfering with the conversation here.Timaeus

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

11:38 AM

11

11

38

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Thank you, Mung (#35). Welcome to neo-id! This is 'design theory' about human designers and their/our (small d) designs and choices to act on them. 'Inference' is one term among many others that may be properly applied. This does not require any claim to speculative natural scientificity about OoL, OoBI or human origins. It is neo-id as a human-social science dealing with 'everyday life' (P. Sztompka). Let us explore this fruitfully together! Darwinists need not apply - drop Darwinism and evolutionism at the door to help explore = )Gregory

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

11:04 AM

11

11

04

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link

Sorry StephenB, 'Christian Darwininists' is a hogwash word, which I won't dignify. Your sociological (i.e. 'most of them') observation doesn't match with mine. I meet devout orthodox religious TEs who do not worship or idolize Darwin. But that doesn't suit the Big-ID underdog (even our fellow religious are against us!) narrative to tell. Darrel Falk at BioLogos this past summer, in a series dialogue with William Dembski, explained how he is not a 'Darwinist.' ID culture warriors, playing in the background the 'cdesign proponentsists' tune, aka Big-ID, don't trust him and won't accept his direct words. Not a surprise! "I, like Dembski and like Southern Baptists in general, am not a Darwinist." - Darrel Falk StephenB wrote in response: "So everything seems to turn on the audience and on which day of week the discussion is taking place." The EXACT same has been said of Big-ID leadership! Crafty Timaeus simply will not accept Falk at his word and UD will continue to 'war' with BioLogos and ASA and responsible TEs, with Timaeus drumming for more antinomy between you. Didn't you folks read Carolyn Crocker's message of reconciliation with ASA a few months back? Again, StephenB, let me repeat that there is another way, try a different route to your goal, if you're willing to explore rather than dogmatize IDism vs. everyone else. Will you open yourself to seek it?Gregory

November 17, 2012

November

11

Nov

17

17

2012

10:56 AM

10

10

56

AM

PST

Copy Comment Link