Release of the Sententias Journal

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 15, 2013

News}

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

Max Andrews, a blogger and student of philosophy well known to many of us in the ID community, has launched a graduate/postgraduate peer-reviewed journal, which is scheduled for quarterly release and has the stated purpose “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science.” People of any religious affiliation or metaphysical persuasion — including Christians, theists, agnostics and atheists — are invited to submit articles to the journal.

You can download the first issue of the journal here.

Comments

O.k. Kantian Naturalist, then I await your proposed quotations from Placher's works regarding univocal predication. From what I read, Placher didn't seem to be supportive of 'Intelligent Design' theory, and in fact debunked it along Feser's line. As with you, I'm quite interested in "the transition to modernity" and also to 'post-modernity,' whatever that signifier means. I quote Dupre in a recent paper I've been writing in regard to 'scientism'. But I don't consider the imagined 'collapse' of transcendence as something worthwhile for people to embrace. It sounds dehumanising in the vertical sense. Your capitalisation of 'Good Thing' is interesting. But here at UD, I'm supposed to be too obtuse to notice capitalisation of terms and what people mean by it. So I won't comment on that.Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

In re: Gregory @ 151:
Thanks to Kantian Naturalist for linking to the Placher book. I’m curious to hear how he negotiates Placher’s message of extra-natural transcendence with his (apparently) non-transcendent ‘naturalism.’ In any case, I would be glad to read some quotations he selects from Placher’s book about univocal predication and ‘Intelligent Design’ natural theology/‘science’.
I recommend Placher's work as a contribution to the history of ideas, and as a work about the transition to modernity -- a serious intellectual hobby of mine. (Apart from Placher, I've also read some things by Dupre, Toulmin, and Funkenstein.) But I don't endorse Placher's perspective -- he thinks of the domestication of transcendence as a bad thing, whereas I think of the "collapse" of transcendence as a Good Thing.Kantian Naturalist_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Gregory @160: My interest is in the general concept of design detection, very simply stated. And, yes, it can be applied broadly across a multitude of artifacts. And, no, it doesn't matter who the designer is, nor is there any possible way to specifically identify the designer (though a design can give some clues as to a designer's capabilities and, perhaps, goals/intent). I have not misrepresented intelligent design. Further, even if you feel you have some unique insight and perspective into so-called "Big-ID" and even if I have not been willing to adopt your terminology, that does not mean I have misrepresented you. I have no interest in discussing various flavors of ID with their varying 'rules' of punctuation you have come up with. Your Big-ID, small-id discussion means nothing to me. I accept that you have strong feelings on the issue and that you feel there is some critical distinction and that we should all be interested in some broader "movement." I have no such inclination. Finally, the rest of the stuff you carry on about is less clear to me, though I am sure you are under the impression it is all very important and coherent. I am happy to talk about design detection generally. I am happy to talk about indicia of design, complex specified information, the origin of life, the irreducible complexity in biological systems, the semiotic state we see at work in DNA storage/retrieval/translation. I have no interest in discussing the ID "movement," various capitalization-dependent permutations of the words "intelligent design," or anyone's semi-paranoid or semi-delusional views on the motives or intent of prominent design proponents.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

[The Catholic Church rejects polygenism]. Gregory
Yes, the first sentence is quite well-known. And I’d already read the text you cited. Why is this controversial? What is being refuted?
Apparently, Gregory doesn’t catch on too quickly. The document Humani Generis refutes fraudulent Catholics who support polygenism and the evolution of mind from matter in the name of Catholicism. In that same sense, it refutes Gregory, who cites them with approval as authentic spokesmen for the Catholic position. If, as Gregory claims (stretching credulity to the breaking point), he had already read that magisterial document, then it would also mean that he knowingly characterized anti-magisterial Catholics as authentic Catholic spokesmen in order to mislead his readers into believing that ID is incompatible with the Church's teachings.
God willing, I work with and/or aim to work with people who are leaders in their scholarly fields; I’m not a ‘servant’ of either Fuller or Feser.
Since Feser and Fuller disapprove of ID in some measure, Gregory thinks that they must both be right for that reason alone, even if each man’s reasons are inconsistent with the other man’s reasons. He refuses to answer any fair question about those inconsistencies or articulate his own views on the matter since doing so would lead to a substantive discussion for which he is not prepared.
Feser is a Catholic, who has shown brilliantly how Thomism is incompatible with Big-ID theory
Feser has been refuted by other Thomist Catholics, who explain that Thomism is, indeed, compatible with ID. Naturally, Gregory lacks the intellectual curiosity to ask me who these Thomists are. Clearly, he doesn’t want to know. I would be happy to repeat my own refutation of Feser for Gregory if I thought he was capable of absorbing it. However, I have enough experience with Gregory to know how he would respond. In effect, he will ignore the refutation and say that I am not qualified to have an opinion. At the same time, he will insist that Feser, as a professional philosopher, is really---really---smart, and that I should defer on those grounds alone. This is the way Gregory tries to argue.StephenB_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Apology accepted, Eric. I wrote: "There is a TON of ‘design theory’ out there even today that is simply outside the scope of ‘intelligent design’ as the IDM names it." Eric made a big beef about this. And probably he would not be willing to publically defend himself about the evidence other than protesting about it at ID-friendly UD. "Intelligent design is a broad concept that encompasses all design by intelligent agents." - Eric Anderson But Big-ID theory categorically *does not* study 'design' by human beings (i.e. 'intelligent agents'). There is no ID theory of human-made artefacts. What Eric said is thus a mispresentation of Big-ID theory. Check it out for yourselves: Myths about ID I enjoyed our conversations there, Eric, and appreciated your thoughts. It doesn't seem to me that you would wish to defend the 'revolutionary' claims of the IDM in a public debate.Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Re: My comment @157: I apologize for my confrontational comment. What I should say is this: Please give me specific examples of times I have misrepresented you so that I can correct it. ---- And note that calling your bluff, or pointing out where you are wrong, or challenging your logic, or even making fun of a position do not constitute misrepresentation.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

O.k. then, Eric Anderson. I challenge you to the same public debate that I challenged Timaeus to. He was too afraid for his livelihood (Expelled Syndrome) to debate publically in his real name with a well-informed anti-IDist. How about you? You have told too many untruths here at ID using your ideological IDism. In our recent conversation, you dodged the entire field of 'design theory' outside of the IDM. Will you now stand up for the 'natural science-only' claims of Big-ID theory?
“This house believes that Intelligent Design is a revolutionary natural scientific theory for origins of life, origins of biological information and human origins, which will potentially replace (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory.”
Will you defend this claim of the IDM? If not, what question would you be willing to pose instead?Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

I’ve been misrepresented mainly by IDists. By folks like . . . Eric Anderson . . . who have put words into my mouth repeatedly, yes.
And that, sir, is a lie.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Gregory can admit that he is down, or, like the knight in the Monty Python movie, he can keep fighting — with the same comical effect.
"Come back here! It's just a scratch!" LOL!Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

'Horsecrap,' actually? Yes, this is a good definition of Timaeusean-IDism. Pure and simply ideologically smelly and deceptive! Run away from us foul-smelling Timaeus.
“Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy” – Timaeus
Yes, I recognise that.
“One of the difficulties in assessing *anything* that Gregory says about theology is that his *own* theology is extremely nebulous.” – Timaeus
Hold on, folks. I thought it was protested loudly and regularly that Big-ID theory has *nothing* to do with theology. Absolutely nothing!? Timaeus could be asking me about the Los Angeles Lakers here, for all that matters. But I thought we were supposed to be talking about ‘real ID.’ Strike, as usual, for Timaeus.
“When have I ever discussed the contents of his [Gregory’s] academic work in these debates?” - Timaeus
Never, that I am aware of. Timaeus doesn’t care to discuss post-IDist scenarios. He is blind and deaf to progressive ideas, pretending instead to support regressive pre-modern mentalities.
“when I speak of “evolution” or “evolutionary theory” or “modern evolutionary theory” *without qualification*, I *always* mean a natural science theory.” – Timaeus
So, you’re out of touch with contemporary ideas. What’s new?
“I have applauded him, here and elsewhere, for resisting the intrusion of “evolution” as a concept into human/social matters.” - Timaeus
One hand clapping for 3 seconds doesn’t constitute ‘applause.’ ;) Before it was a ‘biological’ idea, ‘evolution’ was a philosophical idea. And H. Spencer’s ‘evolution’ pre-dates Darwin’s ‘evolution.’ What does ‘Intelligent Design’ extend from? It’s a simple question. But easy for Timaeus to avoid, which is what he habitually likes to do on purpose. He seemingly can’t answer the question *only* because he *won’t.* He knows that answering it would destroy IDism as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. So we are expected to torture ourselves waiting patiently for a reply from him as if ‘Timaeusean-ID’ is even significant and relevant when it actually isn’t. He couldn’t pass an undergraduate test on the topic, let alone pretending to be a teacher.
“What does it mean?” – Timaeus
Check you preferred dictionary and then attempt an answer.
“His attempt to portray himself as victimized” – Timaeus
No, I don’t feel victimised and claim no victimisation. Matzske is no perpetrator against me; neither are E. Scott, S. Harris, D. Dennett, R. Dawkins, et al. Do you hear me clearly when I say this? I’ve been misrepresented mainly by IDists. By folks like Timaeus and StephenB, Mung, Joe, KF, Eric Anderson, PeterJ and BA77 who have put words into my mouth repeatedly, yes. But no, I’m not victimised. It is Timaeus’ ‘Expelled Syndrome’ that is ‘victimisation-central’ when it comes to ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. Many UDists quite obviously suffer from this disease. Both Max Andrews and I understand this very well. Timaeus seems quaintly aloof. Other IDists seem ignorant. And I don’t really care if I am supposed to be ‘victimised’ by Timaeus, who has the ‘bite’ of a tame chili pepper.
“Berdyaev, who was a liberal, if not an outright heretic, within Russian Orthodox theology.” - Timaeus
Oops, he just read Wikipedia and formed a new view. Timaeus is actually a nobody; a flake, a failed ‘scholar.’ He simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. And as he told me, he is too lazy to go to church on Sunday mornings. Let IDists embrace his neutrality and lethargic (except pro-ID forums) work ethic! The remainder of Timaeus’ assumptions about who I am is laughable. Again, get a life Timeaus! Your cave seems so small and stingy.
“the liberals of the Faraday Institute” – Timaeus
Actually, there are quite a large number of ‘conservatives’ who are involved in and support the Faraday Institute. Timaeus doesn’t read their stuff, of course, so it’s not surprising that he wouldn’t know this.
“All we can be sure of is that whatever Christian theology Gregory holds to, it’s anti-ID.” - Timaeus
Yes, I reject Big-IDism. That ideology is both bad theology and bad science. Timaeus’ views of Fuller are so much softer and irrelevant than a ‘bolt.’ He is rather a ‘dolt’ in that conversation. My new position has nothing to do with Big-ID theory, with ‘Intelligent Design.’ Thankfully!! It is a legitimate and productive scholarly position. And I don’t answer to tenure-fail rejects like Timaeus who have nothing collaborative or positive to contribute to contemporary scholarship except by posting hatred and mockery on blogs. As I said above, my interest is in productive and active scholars, scientists and thinkers. We are blessed to have many such people active in research and teaching today. Unfortunately, IDists are under-represented in that category. If you want to swallow, folks, a rather freakish and fearful view of ‘the West’ (from a guy who won’t even tell where he lives, Canadian or American!) then pay close attention to what Timaeus writes and taste it for what it is. Indeed consume it if you like, without any worry that it is poisonous at all. Drink, IDists, drink!Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Well, Gregory is back, and as insulting, belligerent and unreasonable as ever, even though I very carefully tried to keep my posts focused on the issues rather than on personalities. I often wonder why Gregory misunderstands simple things. Sometimes I think that his intelligence works on the basis of a mechanical literalism that is word-focused and context-blind; other times I think he deliberately misconstrues my intention. Here is an example where it is initially hard to tell: ************** “Everything Gregory has written, here and on BioLogos and elsewhere, indicates that he is happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory…” – Timaeus "As if Timaeus has read “everything” I’ve written – we just have to humour his constant exaggerations and sense of omniscience! The fact is that I’ve written and published in peer-reviewed journals and books *against* evolutionism and ‘evolutionary theory’ outside of natural-physical sciences (since I am not a natural-physical scientist). Why then would he even pretend that I’m “happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory”?" - Gregory ******************* Now, does Gregory *really* think that by "everything" he has written, that I was including his academic work, or even his blogging on social science matters? Isn't it quite clear from the context of these discussions that I meant "everything he has written on internet debating sites devoted to intelligent design, theistic evolution, Darwinism, etc."? If he knows perfectly well what I meant, then his indignation over my use of "everything" is mock, phoney, staged. And if he doesn't, why is he so poor at contextualizing remarks? When have I ever discussed the contents of his academic work in these debates? When have I ever quoted anything he said other than what he has said in the venues I've mentioned? But let's give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, and pretend that he really didn't understand what I meant by "everything." Let's move further on into his paragraph. One thing he *does* understand about my meaning, very well -is that when I speak of "evolution" or "evolutionary theory" or "modern evolutionary theory" *without qualification*, I *always* mean a natural science theory. Gregory knows this. So he is faking, pretending, feigning indignation when he denies fiercely my supposed charge that he affirms "evolutionism and ‘evolutionary theory’ outside of natural-physical sciences"; he knows that I have *never* done so, in any conversation with him. In fact, he knows very well that I have applauded him, here and elsewhere, for resisting the intrusion of "evolution" as a concept into human/social matters. So *knows* that my meaning was limited to: "Gregory accepts the modern biological theory of evolution." Since he knows this, his indignant protest that I am making a false accusation is pure theater. I know it; and he knows that I know it. So who is he trying to fool? Now when we back-apply what I've just demonstrated to the earlier point, it becomes even clearer how the word "everything" was to be contextualized. Gregory must have known that what I meant was: "From the sum of his posts on the ASA list, BioLogos, here, and on other such sites, we can tell that Gregory endorses the factual truth of biological evolution and accepts at least the main outlines of modern evolutionary theory." His attempt to portray himself as victimized by my misrepresentation falls flat on its rear end. About Fuller, Gregory writes: "As for Fuller, he seems not to have made his ‘theology of ID’ altogether clear yet in his writings, though he openly references the Abrahamic faiths." Horsecrap. Fuller's Christian theology is far from clear overall, but *his point about univocity and Franciscan influence and his recommendation that the West should keep going along these lines, and not turn back to Thomism and kindred positions* -- these things are extremely clear. He has stated his position on these matters on this very site, and he has stated it in interviews available on the internet, and in some of his published writings. Gregory knows that I can provide the quotes, so I'm not going to bother with the formality of doing so. As for Feser, he makes very clear that while Fuller "gets it" (meaning, Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy), he thinks Fuller has taken the wrong side. The battle-line is drawn. There may be points on which Fuller and Feser agree, or could be harmonized; but this isn't one of them. One of them has to be right, and one of them has to be wrong. So Gregory either (1) lacks the metaphysical/theological understanding to "get" what Feser and Fuller both "get" -- which would not be surprising, since Gregory doesn't have a shred of training in systematic theology, history of Christian thought, Biblical exegesis, or the relevant ancient languages -- or (2) knows full well that he has to side with either Feser and Fuller, but won't do it publically, for some unknown political reason. One of the difficulties in assessing *anything* that Gregory says about theology is that his *own* theology is extremely nebulous. He sometimes affects to sound like an arch-conservative, defending Feser's Thomism lately, and previously screaming at BioLogos columnists like Alexander and Venema for allegedly denying the historical existence of Adam and Eve. But then he endorses the theology of Berdyaev, who was a liberal, if not an outright heretic, within Russian Orthodox theology, and he constantly makes snide remarks against American conservative and fundamentalist Protestantism -- even though that Protestantism has also argued strenuously against the BioLogos reading of Adam and Eve! He tries to appeal to the authority of the Catholic church in arguments, but is not himself Catholic and shows no interest in becoming one. He tells us that he likes aspects of the Orthodox church, but does not tell us whether or not he subscribes to its theology (in which case we should be hearing more from him about Maximus the Confessor than about Berdyaev and other modern Russian writers who orthodoxy was highly suspect). He has sneered a few times at Calvin and/or Calvinism, and he doesn't like any emphasis on God's sovereignty. He rarely cites theological writings (except in polemical contexts related to religion/science questions), giving the impression that he doesn't spend a lot of time reading Luther, Pascal, St. John of the Cross, Gregory Nazianzus, Augustine, Kierkegaard, etc. And generally speaking, he shows very little interest in detailed Biblical interpretation, even when arguing about things like Adam and Eve -- which makes him unlike any traditional evangelical Protestant (the close study of the Bible was the food, water and air of evangelical Protestantism). So when he "endorses" Feser or Fuller, or the liberals of the Faraday Institute, or anyone else, it is hard to tell what that amounts to. All we can be sure of is that whatever Christian theology Gregory holds to, it's anti-ID. I've shot my bolt about Fuller. It's sticking in Gregory's heart right now. Gregory can admit that he is down, or, like the knight in the Monty Python movie, he can keep fighting -- with the same comical effect. Gregory, it's clear that we aren't going to get any further on any of these issues, so why don't you save yourself and all of us time, and get on with your official farewell letter that you've been promising? Let us know what this new job or prize or whatever is that is going to make you such a big shot in the world of scholarship regarding ID, get your routine bragging off your chest, and give us your final denunciations -- how academically inferior we all are to you, how many light-years we are behind you, how ideological we all are, etc. And make sure you stick in "Big-ID" "Discovery-ID" "the cancelled Discovery summer program in social sciences and humanities" "I out-argued every single staff member of the Discovery Institute" "natural-science-only" "outdated history-of-ideas approach" "Bejan" and of course "human extension" as many times as you can, to remind us of the pleasures we'll be missing after you're gone.Timaeus_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

(cont'd) My view goes beyond the IDM’s narrow pseudo-naturalism (cosmology, chemistry, biology, natural informatics) to open up a new pathway to discussion that collaboratively (and potentially fruitfully) involves (natural and social) science, philosophy and theology/worldview. Without such a triadic discourse, Big-ID theory is just empty implicationism, thumping its radical chest. And by willfully inviting YECs into the ‘little-big tent’ of ID, the ‘science’ aspect of the theory’s claim is irrecoverably tainted and compromised. People who reject ID theory on theological grounds: Dr. William E. Carroll at the University of Oxford. – William E. Carroll Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney – Robert Forsyth “It is my firm conviction that theologians should reject ID as exactly that: an illusion, built to blind the faithful.” Taede Smedes These views should not be rejected by UDists blindly, as if those persons had not done their homework or as if they, as is repeated here far too often, ‘simply don’t understand ID.’ If ‘Timaeus’ actually thought he could defend ‘ID theory’ in front of his peers, then he would have the courage and stop hiding from his colleagues, from the world, and stand up tall to face them/us. I offered him an opportunity here to do that, but as expected he snivelled away, blaming me that he feels he has to play a victim. Some people are like that and will not stand up for what they believe in publically. That’s what ‘Expelled Syndrome’ has come to mean in the IDM. Thankfully, Max Andrews doesn’t suffer from such a condition and neither do I. There are, nevertheless, more fruitful ways of fulfilling the desires of IDist leaders themselves, *if* they are willing to choose alternative paths, for example, to openly admit that ‘ID’ *is* properly speaking a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. This has been repeated here ad nausea. But the DI seems to be just too busy trying to be new Kuhnian-atheism-inspired ‘scientific’ revolutionaries to pay any attention to such potentially productive suggestions. The fact is that many people (e.g. like R. Collins, F. Beckwith and M. Ryland, who left the DI for various reason), after almost 20 years of hearing IDists’ ‘revolutionary’ hot-air, have stopped writing and talking about ‘Intelligent Design’ theory simply because they have decided it really isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things. The pomp and vanity of Big-ID natural scientism wasn’t worth listening to after all. That is how I will treat Big-ID theory, while working forward on fruitful paths from now on too. And it likewise means that I can be a productive mainstream scholar instead of a marginal ‘revolutionary’ daydreamer and American educational-political activist, and can accept orthodox Abrahamic belief that we are ‘Created,’ regardless of whether or not the word ‘Design’ can be ‘scientifically’ proven/inferred. Thus, evolution, creationism, ID and BioLogos can potentially be brought into new dialogical space. Gregory p.s. Jon Garvey is of course not obliged to answer to my questions about why he seemingly *wants* to be called an ‘evolutionist,’ even though he could easily renounce ‘evolutionism.’ As you can see, folks, there is peer pressure to conform here at UD (and Jon is a pleasant guy) and to be tactically polite at the risk of offending ideological IDists who try their hardest to conflict with their fellow religious opponents, the TEs and ECs in the contemporary American landscape. It’s perhaps unfortunate that Jon won’t explain why he persists in calling himself an ‘evolutionist,’ even as he is a theist, like most people here, because doing so might help UDists to realise that accepting ‘limited evolutionary biology’ isn’t such a bad thing as they make it out to be, even if they have to call it partially or wholly ‘Darwinian.’Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

(cont'd) As for things that UD and Timaeus purposefully stay mainly silent about, a lot of good scholarship and honest work has been done. The Divine Action Project or Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action that combines the efforts of the Vatican Observatory and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences is one example. Yet again, these people are forthright and non-elusive in saying that they are doing ‘science and religion’ or ‘science, philosophy and theology’ discourse; they don’t demand public recognition as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory as Big-ID theory still does. The top science and religion organisations in the English speaking world *all* reject Big-ID theory, often based on the small-id (theology and no politics) vs. Big-ID (quasi-natural science and political movement) distinction that I and several others here at UD acknowledge. These include the Templeton Foundation, the Faraday Institute, the Centre for Theology and Natural Sciences, the BioLogos Foundation and the International Society for Science and Religion. They/we all reject Big-ID theory, while likewise accepting classical theological/apologetic ‘design arguments’ or ‘small-id’ (with the exception of a few Fellows of ISSR, who are religious non-theists). I’m quite confident that this is the same line that Dr. Jon Garvey would take in so far as he has accepts theological ‘design arguments,’ and doesn’t require the scientificity of ‘Intelligent Design,’ but rather only the ‘intuitive’ recognition of ‘Design’ seen through the eyes/ears of faith. ‘Intelligent Design’ theory has been rejected either as bad science or bad theology or both by most major science and religion organisations. Those are the facts one discovers if they ‘follow the evidence where it leads.’ The Discovery Institute is not a ‘science and religion’ institute, though it sponsors some ‘science and religion’ events; this is because it still insists that Big-ID theory is ‘natural-science-only.’ UD has completely failed to come to terms with this reality. ISSR statement “To find out what the Catholic Church teaches, one must go to the Church’s official documents, such as encyclicals or the Universal Catechism.” – StephenB Are we talking about what the Catholic Church ‘officially’ teaches? If so, I’m not aware that the RCC has officially ever uttered the concept duo ‘Intelligent Design.’ To the Catholic Church, as far as I know, YOUR THEORY DOESN’T EXIST. Do you have evidence otherwise? Can you provide evidence of an official position of the Catholic Church towards ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ theory? Your bluff has been called, StephenB. For most of the Catholic scholars, scientists and teachers who actually have heard of ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, they have apparently weighed the evidence and ideology and found the so-called ‘theory’ to be lacking both scientifically and theologically. And when Debmski says things like the following, it is no wonder the IDM is dwindling as a movement and why people have stopped taking it seriously given its ‘scientific’ production failures:
“Call those who are blind to God’s action in the world ‘naturalists,’ and call the view that nature is self-contained ‘naturalism’.” – Dembski
Anyone who is not a ‘supernaturalist’ (or ‘socialist’!) is therefore a ‘naturalist’? Such black and white polarising thinking is unhelpful in collaborative science and religion discourse. This is the case especially when it hides behind the naturalism of natural scientific methodologies in demanding and requiring that Big-ID is a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. (cont'd)Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Thanks to Kantian Naturalist for linking to the Placher book. I’m curious to hear how he negotiates Placher’s message of extra-natural transcendence with his (apparently) non-transcendent ‘naturalism.’ In any case, I would be glad to read some quotations he selects from Placher’s book about univocal predication and ‘Intelligent Design’ natural theology/‘science’. From an on-line review of the book:
“This ‘shift to univocity’ – “the growing confidence that our language about God makes roughly the same sort of sense as our language about creatures” (79) – was the first stage of ‘the domestication of transcendence’.”
Is 'ID theory' an example of 'the domestication of transcendence'? The IDM’s obvious conjectures about an unidentifiable (by fiat) ‘intelligent agent/Intelligent Agent’ who supposedly did the ‘designing/Designing’ would seem to verify Placher’s contention. “The God of ID is a god that is measured to human proportions.” Oh, but wait, because according to the ‘official’ or ‘technical’ theory of Big-ID, there *is* no "God of ID!" And some people don’t seem to think that’s a problem, but rather actually a benefit of agnostic IDism.
“The Catholic Church condemns polygenism in principle. I provided the relevant texts that prove the point. Gregory should simply accept the refutation, concede the fact, and move on.” – StephenB
Yes, the first sentence is quite well-known. And I’d already read the text you cited. Why is this controversial? What is being refuted? You seem to be intent on arguing with someone, StephenB, and have thus projected your habitual argument onto me for convenience sake. ‘The fact’ doesn’t need to be conceded when it is accepted and understood. I've been ready to move on for months at UD, but hardcore IDists got stuck in the mud. Regarding Timaeus’ latest antics, not much needs to be said. If I’d had a vote, I wouldn’t have given such a contrarian person tenure in their 1st life either! Sadly, now he has lost his scholarly credibility to all but a few fellow ideologues and activists on-line, which makes it difficult for him to make a living. It’s not so much a question of pity, but rather, why did he let this happen to himself, when humility, diplomacy and patience would have served him well? Out of the blue, Timaeus put the word ‘polygenist’ into my mouth and then went on a tangent to suggest that perhaps I really do accept ‘polygenism,’ depending on how he, himself and him, the great ‘historian of ideas’ defines it. What a card! Such a human being seems to be beyond hope of honest, non-flip-flopping communication in respect of dialogue partners. One should respond to Timaeus with childrens’ rhymes: “Gimme, gimme never gets, all s/he gets is cigarettes.” Such a sense of entitlement as he has displayed here is hard to imagine on the Internet!
“Everything Gregory has written, here and on BioLogos and elsewhere, indicates that he is happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory...” - Timaeus
As if Timaeus has read “everything” I’ve written – we just have to humour his constant exaggerations and sense of omniscience! The fact is that I’ve written and published in peer-reviewed journals and books *against* evolutionism and ‘evolutionary theory’ outside of natural-physical sciences (since I am not a natural-physical scientist). Why then would he even pretend that I’m “happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory”? What ‘Timaeus’ has written at BioLogos is a testament to how confused he is as a so-called “intelligent design theistic evolutionist,” as he tries to bridge ID and TE, while at the same time ridiculing and condescending towards the theology of TEs. (Cf. Jon G.’s reasons for being ‘polite’ here at UD below) “Gregory cannot serve two masters.” – Timaeus God willing, I work with and/or aim to work with people who are leaders in their scholarly fields; I’m not a ‘servant’ of either Fuller or Feser. As for Fuller, he seems not to have made his ‘theology of ID’ altogether clear yet in his writings, though he openly references the Abrahamic faiths. I can say that the same is true when I’ve asked him personally about it; which differs drastically from Timaeus who puffed his chest up to proclaim his aged superiority over Fuller. Please don’t try to hold Fuller or myself captive to your ‘creationist’ pasts, folks at UD, simply because we both look at humanity and designing forwardly, not just in reverse as the IDM. The past tense ‘designed’ language deals with cosmology, biology and other non-anthropic fields, but it is desperately lacking (and sometimes gladly admits this, but sometimes doesn’t) when it comes to the study human beings and the already widespread uses of ‘teleological’ thinking. IDists want to play victims as if ‘teleological’ thinking is banished from today’s Academy/Universities, when that is simply not true, along with the fact that ‘design theory’ of the non-IDM variety is also ‘mainstream’ and productive. Feser is a Catholic, who has shown brilliantly how Thomism is incompatible with Big-ID theory: 1) IDism is actually about univocal predication instead of analogical predication with God, though ID leaders don’t openly admit this, and 2) IDism eschews immanent formal and final causes ‘for the sake of argument.’ 3) Feser also notes how ID is a ‘moving target,’ a feature which is displayed on a daily basis at UD, e.g. flip-flopping between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ in the very definition of ‘ID’ shown at UD. I don’t participate at UD to ‘negotiate’ or ‘mediate’ between Fuller and Feser. They both exceed the limits of IDism in their own ways and I’d rather listen to either of them than to Dembski, Meyer, Wells, Nelson or Behe (all of which I’ve heard live other than Behe). They are both much stronger thinkers than DI-IDists, without a shadow of a doubt. The recent Fuller-Meyer exchange at Cambridge is just one example that demonstrates this clearly, and which IDists could see if they ‘followed the evidence where it leads’ in the light of recorded history. (cont’d)Gregory_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

As Ray commented in 1690, Francis Bacon's emphasis upon the importance of the empirical method allowed his generation of natural theologians to anchor their ideas firmly in the natural world. Robert Boyle's work in chemistry and Ray's in biology contributed significantly to the emergence of a new style of natural theology, distinguished by an appeal to the empirical world rather than the truths of reason. (p.23) - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology.
Sorry Gregory.Mung_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Jon @148: That is a wonderful story! :) I hear your skepticism. Yet, I think perhaps you are still being too conciliatory.
That to me seems plausible except for one thing – “undirected, unplanned.”
That is indeed the key. But even if we assume a naturalistic story, the story also breaks down if we start asking some simple questions about the specifics. Let's see. We have this population of organisms accumulating a bunch of junk for a long time and then something happens to trigger a change . . . In the entire population? In one or two individuals? How does the change get passed on throughout the population? It can only do so if it is not a large step change, for example one that would prevent interbreeding. When we are talking about development of a faster run, or more efficient digestion, or a larger brain, it is easy for the fertile mind to imagine that there is some continuum of slight successive changes that might lead to the result and that the population can follow. In most cases this series of slight successive changes only exists in the fertile imaginations of evolutionists, but we don't even have to go there because there are other examples where a series of slight, successive changes can't realistically get us across the chasm -- like going from asexual to sexual reproduction, or going from land-dwelling to ocean-dwelling, and so on. You don't get anything at all like an entire population slowly, gently, almost imperceptibly, crossing that chasm. The best you can hope for is an individual, or with sexual reproduction involved, at least two individuals, who happen to have evolved the necessary characteristics and also happen to mate, at which point an entirely new "population" emerges. Each such new population would therefore have its own "Adam and Eve" so to speak. :)Eric Anderson_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Eric Though I've not yet got a clear handle on where you see the particular problem, as you say the devil is in the detail. My 500K hominid population above is wildly exaggerated - apart from specific bottlenecks most large mammal populations are quite small: yesterday our news said the deer population of UK is 1.25m, the largest number since the ice age. That's across 4 main species of a generalist herbivore: if we had predators it would be a fraction of that. A Scientific American paper estimates an absolute max "humanoid" population (ie sapiens, erectus, ergaster) of 55K 1m years ago... even at the stage they were already expanding out of Africa. That suggests any earlier "healthy" population in the low hundreds of thousands at most, and ditto for any Australopithecine ancestors. A very small population for all that evolutiomnary change, given a Darwinian gradualist population-wide model. And if a small subgroup was the focus of allopatric speciation, even more wondrous. The nearest to a "modern" explanation I've gleaned is this. Australopithecus wanders around going ape for a million or two years. As a small population with slow reproduction, natural selection has the capacity only for purifying - ie all the monsters die. Meanwhile, lots of near-neutral mutations (undirected and unplanned, of course) slip under the selective radar as repetitive elements, pseudogenes etc, but are not expressed in an interbreeding population. Result, maybe some gradual morphological change, but still a smallish population of the same kind of Australopithecus, only with greater genetic diversity - ie lots of junk in the attic. Then there's a crisis: change of environment, isolated population, or the very bottleneck we've discussed. The selective requirements change radically - if we're being 21st century types, Shapiro's hybridisation pressure might come into it too. The unusual recombination, in a new situation, of all that junk by sexual mixing suddenly turns up new genes doing useful stuff... like speech, abstract thought, the 10 commandments, cricket, democracy and ruling the world. "The job's a good'n'" as they say here. We've arrived. That to me seems plausible except for one thing - "undirected, unplanned." It beggars belief that with the only "intelligent" element in evolution kept busy just keeping apes the same, that the collection of random, unelected, junk for a million years will reliably accumulate enough stuff to turn up rational people as required - or birds, or tyrannosaurs, or butterflies, or symbionts of a particular species of worm... It does seem the equivalent of a compulsive beachcomber finding enough stuff to build a helicopter in his attic if the going gets tough.Jon Garvey_{March 8, 2013
March
03
Mar
8
08
2013
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
Big-ID theory is based on univocal predication between God and human beings (Design/design).
Ever read Alfred Russel Wallace?Mung_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

...it is what I do with my education that is important, not simply the diploma paper or title itself.
Obviously not a Harvard grad.Mung_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, fair enough. I asked because Placher has a lot to say about the role of univocal predication in the rise of modern science. I'll post some juicy quotes later on.Kantian Naturalist_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Jon: Well, I think there are multiple ways to view Adam and Eve without doing violence to any of the well-established principles of population genetics. But I don't have a particular dog in the Adam and Eve fight, so I'll set that aside for now. My issue is more foundational. Population genetics are relevant once we have a population. The discussions always start with "Assume a population X . . ." But the origin of that population is often the very issue in question, certainly with respect to human origins. And every attempt to "explain" the current origins tends to assume, in very broad strokes and without enough detail to be really analyzable, that we start with a population that is roughly similar to what we have now. Indeed, in your example (I'm not picking on you, I think you've outlined the general thinking pretty well) we start with a population of actively interbreeding individuals that are pretty close to humans. Again, there is never much detail given, but the picture painted (either explicitly or implicitly) is that we have a population of individuals who can actively breed; they aren't human just yet, but with just a few tweaks here and there, they will become human. This is the picture that is painted. And it is relatively easy at that point to suggest that population genetics might be able to take over and ultimately lead to where we are today. Yet this ancestral population is completely hypothetical. Furthermore, as I've said, a big part of the open question is where this ancestral population came from. I used LUCA just as the most obvious example, because all individuals have to eventually converge on LUCA. But even at key break points, there has to be something like a LUCA. In order for population genetics to even get kick-started, we have to have a population. And the population has to be composed of individuals who can interbreed. And if I'm going from one type of organism to another, say land-dwelling to water-dwelling, it is perfectly reasonable to question how the water-dwelling population came about. Simply asserting that there was always a decent-sized population to work from at every minute step along the way, along all trajectories, and throughout all time is nothing more than a restatement of the theory. We have to rely on something other than population genetics to bridge the large gaps: whether we are talking about major body plan changes, a move from asexual to sexual reproduction, a radically different environment, and so on. (Especially when the fossil record is characterized by so many gaps and jumps, instead of what Darwin envisioned with organisms merging almost imperceptibly from one to the next, like colors on a color chart.) The primary reason these transitions from one major stage to another seem believable is because they are described in such vague and general terms. In terms of the origin of these key stages in the history of life on Earth, the perception of evolution's truth is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.Eric Anderson_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Eric I have many problems with current ET, but for some reason that isn't one of them. It seems obvious to me even at an uncontroversial micro-evolution level. Maybe one could compare language: every neologism is coined by an individual, but spreads through his/her circle before it can be said to become part of the language. No one individual contributes much to the total, and the language remains alive and English, but the trend is to change. By the time you're back to Chaucer, it's seems foreign. Population genetics also has the equivalent of dialects - not everything is a new mutation, but a selection of existing traits. So if weird Australians whose voices go up at the end of sentences get on to popular TV, it'll change the language though it's been around for decades. Regarding my point to nullasalus, there's a quote in the Telegraph today by Steve Jones (about genetic testing) which is relevant to the question of Adam and Eve, and possibly to your point too:
Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at UCL said: “On a long trudge through history – two parents, four great-grandparents [sic], and so on – very soon everyone runs out of ancestors and has to share them. As a result, almost every Briton is a descendant of Viking hordes, Roman legions, African migrants, Indian Brahmins, or anyone else they fancy.”
By the way, you're not suggesting we put Adam and Eve back to LUCA, are you ?? :-)Jon Garvey_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Jon @139: You've done a great job providing an overview of the population genetics story. I don't necessarily have an issue with the story as you've described it.* My question was a bit more simple and basic. And it relates to the assumption that your population genetics story started with: "Imagine a population of 500,000 . . ." That is precisely my point. Where did the population of 500,000 come from? Eventually, according to evolutionary theory, we get back to a LUCA (there is some discussion of there being more than one, but most agree that there is a LUCA). Furthermore, at any one point of major biological innovation (say, the land-dwelling mammal to a whale transition), it is immensely unclear that we would have a whole population being brought along the path. I realize that is what the story claims, but as soon as we start thinking through the particulars, it becomes much less satisfying. In any event, the alleged 10,000 starting population for humans is not really the "starting point," just a particular way station along the path. I think you did a good job of describing a scenario in which that might be so. But it underscores the 'artificialness' of selecting that starting point, as opposed to an earlier population. ----- One caveat: We often hear that "populations evolve, not individuals." And yet, every evolutionary change -- of any nature -- happens at the individual level. Furthermore, every living thing on the planet descended from a single individual (or pair, in the case of sexual reproduction). [Note, I am not saying that every gene in an individual's body came from the same intermediate line; they could have come from different intermediate lines.] But as far as actual progenitors, you have an ultimate father and an ultimate mother. And (setting HGT aside), therefore, everything you have inherited ultimately flowed through that single line at some point. I think this sometimes gets lost if we think of evolution as a general thing that happens to some undefined, vague population. Ultimately, every change had to flow through individuals -- from the LUCA right to you, every change showed up somewhere in your direct lineal inheritance line(s).Eric Anderson_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Nullasalus Something along those lines seems to be Ed Feser's position, from my reading of his understanding of human nature, rational soul etc, though not necessarily at a palaeolithic distant point, as he sees it. As Timaeus knows all too well, I've been interested over the years in Rohde's work at MIT regarding Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) studies. That's basically a sophisticated version of the rough calculation that a thousand years or so ago each of us has more ancestors than the population of the world at that time (ie 2^number of generations). Rohde concludes (taking into account migration patterns etc) that there's a remarkably consistent figure of c3000 years ago, give or take a millennium or so depending on the modelling used, for the MRCA of the whole current human race. Furthermore, just a few thousand years before that, EVERYONE who has left any descendants now was an ancestor of all of us. We are truly of one blood, and that not necessarily in distant genetic prehistory. Now that's mathematical, and one could conceive, apart from the providence of God, of a lost tribe that missed out on all that. But it means that if common ancestry were the only criterion for Adam and Eve, it's completely conceivable that they could have existed any time from the historical setting of Genesis backwards. The genetic bottleneck, mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam would all be distracting irrelevancies.Jon Garvey_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Nevertheless, Timaeus’s point is correct: if a real Adam and Eve had appeared in the bottleneck population, and interbred, we’d be descended both from them and from all the rest of the 10K who have left any descendants at all.
I'm not sure Timaeus is disputing this, but if this is the case, this is a scenario entirely compatible with monogenism as the Church views it.nullasalus_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Eric Good question, and an important one because it's where many people fail to understand the evolutionary/genetic position, and so make fools of themselves with evolutionists. First, individuals don't evolve - populations do. Imagine the whole population of (say) 500K prehuman apes in Africa. 20K of them get isolated in a forest by some geographical accident. They happen to be the "western" population with a tendency to red hair and voting Democrat. 10K die from a plague. The other 10K survive because they have natural immunity or are lucky - there's your population bottleneck. Meanwhile some bright new Intelligence and toolmaking genes appear in individuals and are so beneficial they spread throughout the 10K population (now in a position to increase). They are now a population of men, not apes. It happens that one woman's mitochondrial DNA (or one particular male Y chromosome, in some other generation) has a survival advantage over the other 9999, and over the millennia the other versions gradually disappear. Thus it is that the present race could be decended from a population of 10000 (with genetic markers to back that up), yet all share one ancestral Y chromosome and one ancestral mitochondrial DNA. The above really has no direct bearing on Adam and Eve - "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Adam are misleading" (attention-seeking?) slogans. Nevertheless, Timaeus's point is correct: if a real Adam and Eve had appeared in the bottleneck population, and interbred, we'd be descended both from them and from all the rest of the 10K who have left any descendants at all. Disclaimer: I've avoided speaking to the theological issues raised by this at all. I'm simply trying to illustrate the genetics. Have I succeeded?Jon Garvey_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

Eric A.: I understand your puzzlement, but I'm afraid I'm the wrong guy to ask. I've tried asking similar questions to population geneticists, and have never got clarity from them. For what it is worth, I think their answer to your first question would be "No; *traits* can sometimes be traced back to single individual -- though not to a *couple*; but *populations* get their sum total of traits from earlier populations, not from individuals." And to your second question I think they would answer: "No, it's because populations derive from earlier *populations* -- humanoid or sub-humanoid is irrelevant -- not from *individuals*." But don't ask me to justify these answers. And don't ask me to justify the figure 10,000, because I don't know how it was arrived at. I think it is arrived at by back-calculation, based on the genes possessed by modern human beings, and how they, according to theory, would have spread through the human population as it expanded. But I'm unfamiliar with the mathematical techniques used. By using these same techniques, I'm told, the population geneticists (or some of them) have calculated that, if there ever had been a first couple from whom all subsequent human beings were descended, just one male and one female, that first couple couldn't have lived later than about 6 to 9 million years ago. So if there ever had been a literal Adam and Eve, who were ancestors of literally every human being who has ever lived, they would have lived that long ago. The problem *then* is, at that time, there were no human beings, because that was before the hypothetical split between the human line and the chimpanzee line -- or something to that effect. So if "Adam and Eve" ever existed, they weren't human beings at all, but something less intelligent than the great apes of today! Thus, they infer, the Biblical story, if taken literally, is false in two ways: (1) The earliest human beings weren't a couple, but a population, and that population existed half a million or a million years ago, not 6,000 years ago; (2) the earliest primordial couple that could have been ancestral to all human beings were not even human, and they existed 5 to 9 million years ago, not 6,000 years ago. So according to this, the "young earth" position has been destroyed by population genetics. (So much for science class being constitutionally required to maintain neutrality on theological questions! I guess it doesn't have to be neutral toward religions which are "known" to be false. Gee, it's good to know that *all Americans* are free from state advocacy against their religion!) Anyhow, as I hope you can tell, I wasn't arguing on behalf of these calculations. I was pointing out that Gregory regularly defers to the biologists on the how and when and what of evolution, but then he wants to affirm a "Catholic" Adam and Eve who couldn't possibly have existed, according to the science he endorses. If they were only two out of a population, they weren't the universal ancestors of all later humans, and so Gregory's "agreement" with Catholic teaching goes out the window; and if they *were* the universal ancestors of all later humans, they weren't the decisively human "Adam and Eve" as portrayed by the Bible, but something far lower than the three-quarters-apes from *2001: A Space-Odyssey*. He can't have it both ways. Either he must reject atheist and TE population-genetics assumptions, or he must scrap part of Catholic theology. But as I've already indicated in the case of Fuller and Feser, Gregory is not very good at letting go of one half of a blatant contradiction.Timaeus_{March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @135: I'm a little confused on the descended-from-a-population-of-10,000 idea. Didn't that population of 10,000, in turn, descent from some smaller population? Say, a population of 100, which in turn descended from a population of, say, 10, and so on . . . Ultimately, is it not the case that each population can be traced back to a universal common ancestor? Do they suggest stopping at the 10,000 population point because earlier ancestors were not humanoid enough to count?Eric Anderson_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

Kantian (134): Don't know either the author or the title, but it sounds potentially interesting. I'll try to find a description of it on the web. Sorry I can't give you a response to the book. I wish I could. But if I get around to reading it, I'll get back to you. In the meantime, if you want to float some ideas from the book, I'll try to respond.Timaeus_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Gregory (in #127 above) angrily denies holding the view of "polygenism." Well, maybe we should start by defining "polygenism." It turns out that (as is often the case) the word has more than one meaning. In the 19th century, it often meant that the different human races (as they were then characterized -- Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc.) had different origins. This view, however, is not required by modern evolutionary theory, so it need not concern us. What *is* (allegedly) required by modern evolutionary theory -- according to the population genetics calculations of both atheists and TEs -- is the conclusion that there was no single couple that was the ancestor of all human beings. According to the modern theory (if we can believe Dennis Venema etc.), all modern human beings descend not solely from an original couple, but from an original breeding population of not less than 10,000. If we call this view "polygenism" (as opposed to "monogenism" -- meaning that Adam and Eve alone were the ancestors of all human beings), then modern evolutionary theory is "polygenist" in this specified sense. We have more than one origin; we spring from Adam and Eve, but *also* from Shad and Gronk and Alley Oop and Wiley and Clumsy Carp and in fact from the majority of the original 10,000 hominids (since most of them would have had descendants). Now, Gregory has never challenged biological evolution per se. He has never said that evolution has not happened; he has never denied that man evolved from lower animals. In fact, he has implicitly endorsed evolution by effectively telling ID theorists to butt out of origins questions and let the natural scientists do their job. And he has never affirmed, despite having hundreds of opportunities to do so, that Adam and Eve were specially created, distinct from all the rest of the animal kingdom. He has in fact ridiculed "creationists" for such denials and affirmations. Everything Gregory has written, here and on BioLogos and elsewhere, indicates that he is happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory regarding the primate origins of mankind, and with whatever mathematics are regarded as good science among population geneticists, as long as science does not deny that there was an Adam and Eve. This means that, unless he explicitly states otherwise, he defers to the notion of an original breeding population of at least 10,000. So even if he accepts a literal Adam and Eve, a first couple endowed by God with some special spiritual capacity, he cannot accept that Adam and Eve were our *only* ancestors; he cannot be monogenist as I have defined it above; he must be polygenist as I have defined it above. But let's not make a big deal about the word. Let's let Gregory reject the *word* "polygenism" if something about it bothers him. (Maybe he thinks of 19th-century polygenism and the attendant racism.) As always, unlike Gregory, I'm not concerned about terms, but about the realities which the terms represent. So let's discuss the implications of the evolutionary reality which Gregory accepts, in light of his acceptance of a historical Adam and Eve. Let's suppose, as Denis Alexander and other TEs have suggested, that God "adopted" a single pair of hominids (Adam and Eve) out of this population, and endowed them with his "image" and gave them "federal headship" over all their descendants. That would make Adam and Eve "real historical individuals." However, the *rest* of the breeding population of 10,000 would itself go on to have descendants. Were *those* descendants under the "federal headship" of Adam and Eve? Why should they be? And when Adam and Eve fell, did only *their* children (Cain and Seth and any others they might have had) acquire original sin, or did the children of their hominid brethren and cousins also acquire original sin? Or did original sin only infect the entire human race after the humans descending from Adam and Eve were blended with the humans descending from the other 9,998 hominids of the original population? But would God have allowed such a blending, of beings in the image of God with beings not in the image of God? It's unclear, in TE statements of the "adopt a hominid" model, whether the "image of God" involves any change in the *nature* of Adam and Eve, or is merely an indication of a different relationship of Adam and Eve to God. If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve became *physically* different in some important way as a result of incorporating the "image," would that mean that only they were truly "human" and that the other hominids were sub-human, i.e., merely a kind of beast, albeit more intelligent than the rest of the beasts? If so, recall from the Bible (the laws of the Pentateuch) that God regarded the blending of humans with any beast, even the most highly intelligent apes -- gorillas etc. -- as an abomination. So if Adam and Eve's 9,998 siblings, cousins, etc. were of sub-human status, surely God would have forbidden such unions. So how could they blend with Adam and Eve's descendants, and thus acquire the image of God? And if they didn't blend, what happened to these sub-human hominids, who must have been initially far more numerous than the descendants of Adam and Eve? Where are they now? Over at Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula? These and other conundrums arise with the "adoption" model proposed by many TEs. The problem I am raising here is that it is not enough to do what Gregory does -- to affirm that Adam and Eve were historical individuals. That is Catholic teaching, but it is not *all* of Catholic teaching on the subject. Gregory has affirmed *part* of Catholic teaching -- the reality of Adam and Eve. But when asked point-blank in the past, by myself, StephenB and others, Gregory has remained silent on the *other* part of Catholic teaching -- the veto of the view that modern human beings may have ancestors other than Adam and Eve. Gregory will not discuss the document quoted by StephenB -- which insists on this additional requirement. And this refusal is not new. If we go back to an older UD discussion (March 2012): https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/biologos-claims-not-to-be-darwinist-after-all-and-its-not-april-1-either/ We see in #33: Timaeus: "I’ll ask one more time: Gregory, were Adam and Eve (or some other primordial fully human couple, whatever names you give them) the exclusive ancestors of all human beings now living, or not?" The question was talked around, but not answered. And when it was put to him in terms of Catholic teaching, in #39: StephenB: "In fact, you have not been very clear on the matter. The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the human race, not simply that they existed as historical figures. You have not said that you agree with both elements of the teaching. Do you?" The question was not answered. Further, there is evidence that Gregory actually denies the second part of Catholic teaching. In the same place, in #25, we see: Gregory: "Do you accept the power of this argument against ‘fundamentalist’ biblical literalists, young earthers & special creationists, some of whom are present & active on UD’s blog? If so, then Amen to Darwin’s contribution toward over-taking the pre-Darwinian worldview held by some theists that the earth is just a few 1000yrs old and that there were no ‘pre-Adamic humans!’" Note that Gregory here mocks the view (that there were no pre-Adamic humans) which appears to be demanded by Catholic doctrine. Further clarity on this subject was requested of Gregory in another, later discussion (August 2012): https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-you-have-to-believe-in-adam-and-eve/ Gregory did not provide the requested clarity. So when StephenB and I press him on this subject, we are not "lying" about his views, nor are we trying to misrepresent him. On the contrary, we have given him every chance to be explicit and precise in formulating his view on Adam and Eve, on other hominids who might have existed before and after Adam and Eve, and so on. He has declined to formulate his view. He has merely repeated, like a mantra, that he agrees with Catholic teaching because he accepts a historical Adam and Eve. But that is simply not an adequate statement of Catholic teaching, and he cannot say he is in agreement with Catholic teaching until he says where he stands on the question whether our ancestry goes back *exclusively* to Adam and Eve, or only *partly* to Adam and Eve, and partly to other hominids who were not "in the image of God." I think I've been very fair and non-polemical here. Gregory can get as angry as he wants, and spew out charges of lies and misrepresentation, but he has invited misrepresentation by keeping his theological and biological cards close to his vest, and not laying them on the table. But his time has run out in this poker game. StephenB and I have now met all his raises, and we are "calling." What is Gregory's doctrine on human ancestry?Timaeus_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply