Improved symbol for the Clergy Letter Project

Aristotle: Because everything is nature moves, and everything moved must first be moved by something else, this series cannot go on forever. There must be, therefore, a prime mover. We can know know nothing thing about the ATTRIBUTES of the prime mover, only that it must be the efficient cause of motion. Kipper: Well then, who is the prime mover. Aristotle: Please reread my first comment. StephenB

Ooops, here's the link: Identifying the Designer Joseph

The following is an article written with Kipper in mind: Identifying the Designer It ends with the very appropriate:

Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?

Joseph

“ID does have acvtual scientific evidence to support it. Irreducible complexity is real and can be tested.” Then why has it never been done so? It has been done and that is why anti-IDists are busy trying to refute it. It is not a scientific argument, it is simply the “argument from incredulity” And yours is an argument from belief only. “Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are evidence for a designer.” First off, no one has ever shown any living thing (or part of a living thing) to be irreducibly complex. That has been done many times over. Your ignorance is not a refutation. Secondly, why must complex information be evidence of a designer? Everytime we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via agency. We have never observbed CSI arising from nature, operating freely. IOW if you can show CSI arising from nature, operating freely, you would falsify ID. Good luck. “ID is NOT about the designer and it is NOT a search for the designer.” But it has to be, their can be no design without a designer. The only way to make any determination about the designer or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. That is the reality of the situation. ID is only about the detection and understanding of the design. The designer and process are kept separate. just like abiogenesis is kept separate from the theory of evolution even though how life ariose directly impacts any subsequent evolution. You all know it has to be, it would be your biggest (and it seems only) piece of evidence. You don't want evidence, you want proof. IOW you aren't inrterseted in science. “So if we find the designers of Stonehenge we have to find out how they came into existence before we can determine that Stonehenge was designed? That’s plain dumb.” We have a good idea of how they came into existence. We don't even know who id it. But more importantly, Stonehenge is not another life form, therefore it did not come into existence in the same method as those that designed it now did it. How is that relevant? Furthermore, anyone studying Stonehenge desperately wants to now all they can about who made it. How do you know? “What caused the “bang”?” I have no idea, but I would certainly not postulate a designer if I have no evidence for their existence. There are only so many options. And saying "I have no idea" does not aleve you of the responsibility of having to explain it. The evidence for the designer can be found by reading "The Privileged Planet" as well as the evidence presented in "Darwin's Black Box", "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Why is a Fly not a Horse?". It is also very telling that you cannot even provide any data which accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. This means you accept that humans & chimps share a common ancestor as a matter of faith. Joseph

Why? Because the designer is irrelevant to the design. As a matter of fact the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. Also, with respect to Darwinism, the processes you mentioned have NEVER been shown to do the things it has been ckaimed to do. And compared to natural selection/ random mutations, design is just as valid of a mechanism. We have experience with designing agencies and we have a pretty good grasp on what nature, operating freely, can do. Couple those and we get the design inference based on the observable evidence. Again we don't have to know who designed Stonehenge or who designed the designer of Stonehenge, in order to determine Stonehenge was designed and then set out to study it so that we can understand it. And in all those years of studying Stonehenge we only have a rudimentry understanding of it. If we knew the designer or the specific processes used we wouldn't have a design inference, design would then be a given. Joseph

"The “Who designed the designer?” question is (besides being something that can get you kicked off the forum) silly" Why? For Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection and random mutation, etc. to be an adequate theory, evidence of those processes must be present. Why not the other way around? Kipper

"ID does have acvtual scientific evidence to support it. Irreducible complexity is real and can be tested." Then why has it never been done so? It is not a scientific argument, it is simply the "argument from incredulity" "Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are evidence for a designer." First off, no one has ever shown any living thing (or part of a living thing) to be irreducibly complex. Secondly, why must complex information be evidence of a designer? Just because you state it does not make it so. "ID is NOT about the designer and it is NOT a search for the designer." But it has to be, their can be no design without a designer. You all know it has to be, it would be your biggest (and it seems only) piece of evidence. Your just afraid to ask the question, and true scientists would never be afraid to ask the question. "So if we find the designers of Stonehenge we have to find out how they came into existence before we can determine that Stonehenge was designed? That’s plain dumb." We have a good idea of how they came into existence. But more importantly, Stonehenge is not another life form, therefore it did not come into existence in the same method as those that designed it now did it. Furthermore, anyone studying Stonehenge desperately wants to now all they can about who made it. "What caused the “bang”?" I have no idea, but I would certainly not postulate a designer if I have no evidence for their existence. Kipper

Speaking of Berlinski and the "middle" position of not fully accepting ID, but fully rejecting Darwinian evolution, here he is telling it why Darwinian evolution is so unbelievable, especially to engineers: How Darwinism Turns a Cow Into a Whale by David Berlinski. scordova

Hi ReligonProf, One had to include other factors entirely, such as sexual selection, to account for the peacock’s impressive feathers, which are presumably advantageous enough in impressing peahens that the disadvantages they must offer when it comes to quickly escaping predators and that sort of thing. It is easy to see something in nature and dream up a story how such a feature is advantageous. Such a scenario, however, is almost impossible to refute. For example, if the peacock never developed such beautiful patterns, it would not be a problem for natural selection either. Any theory that can just as easy explain 2 opposite conclusions is not very easily tested. When you start to go beyond mere imagination and try to quantify how plausible these scenarios really are for gradual development, serious problems begin to emerge. Look at this article for a few of these http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1832/ The main reason I find myself unpersuaded by ID as a scientific approach is that it wishes to redefine science rather than play according to its rules. I do not believe science requires adherence to metaphysical naturalism, but I do think it requires methodological naturalism, because science itself is about natural processes. First, ID is not about naturalism versus supernaturalism. Rather it is about distinguishing between causes of chance and necessity and intelligent causes. The SETI program uses these very same principles. Also, I have no problem with limiting science to only natural explanations. The problem comes in when science must assume evolution is correct because the philosophical system chosen only deals with natural causes. This hinders science by preventing evolution from being subjected to critical scrutiny like other theories of science must go through. Any alternate hypothesis like ID must be ruled out by definition. That is not good science. The public is never told that is what is really happening. Again, I refer you to the excellent work of Cornelius Hunter who has a podcast explaining this further. http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/07/seeing_spots_dr_cornelius_hunt.html That doesn’t mean persons natural or supernatural don’t have a role to play in the universe - it just means that science isn’t about that, at least as the overwhelming majority of scientists understand it. No real poll of scientists has ever been done, so I don’t think you can really argue that there is overwhelming support for Neo-Darwinism. A recent poll of US doctors showed the majority support ID http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05/new_darwin_dissent_list_for_th.html At minimum, I would say a very high percent (well above the ‘fringe’ level) of scientists are willing to go as a far as Dr. Behe. I mean 90% of the US population are willing to go at least as far as he does. Most, of course, will allow design to play a much larger role in history. jjhappel

Outside-of-Science Prof: “The main reason I find myself unpersuaded by ID as a scientific approach is that it wishes to redefine science rather than play according to its rules.” So should ID attempt to identify design by rules that proscribe it? And who changed the rules? The founders or materialist ideologues? And, as others have pointed out (such as StephenB in 21), if the rules forbid a teleological inference then a chance and necessity solution is true by definition. Thus if we rule out design we have also ruled out Darwinism. Naw! Gimmie that old time science, for if it was good enough for Copericus (and Galileo and Newton and Kepler and Mendel and Linneaus a la Joseph 10) then it’s good enough for me. Rude

The "Who designed the designer?" question is (besides being something that can get you kicked off the forum) silly. The assertion that design is needed for specified complexity is not based on pure logic, but on logical conclusions made from observations. Only by first making the observation that, for all specified complexity in physical objects where the origin of that specified complexity was observed, design was involved, can one reach the inductive conclusion that all physical objects with specified complexity originally gained that complexity from design. (Long sentence, sorry.) Without that observation, the conclusion is not necessitated in pure logic. Further, since we only have recorded observation of the creation of physical objects with specified complexity, this conclusion cannot be extrapolated to cover the creation of non-physical objects (subjects?). If there is a complex non-physical designer, there is no necessity that it have a designer itself. In sum, it does not follow that because all physical entities with specified complexity must have a designer, that non-physical entities must. Charles Foljambe

Religious prof, think well on my last statement. If you are open to alternative explanations, you are doing science; if you are open to only one explanation, you are doing religion. StephenB

Religious Prof wrote: "I am willing to grant that for at least a small number of individuals, ID and CS are distinct. For many who use the terms, however, the distinction is at best unclear - e.g. the creators of the board game ‘Intelligent Design vs. Evolution.’The main reason I find myself unpersuaded by ID as a scientific approach is that it wishes to redefine science rather than play according to its rules. ID may be based on observation, bur so was Paley's design argument." \ Of course Paley's argument was based on observation, just as Anslem's was based on presupposition. That is precisely the difference I wish you would get settled on. Augustine's "faith seeking understanding" begins with presupposition and moves FORWARD to nature, just as Tertullian, Anselm, and, as of late, creation science. Aristotle's "first mover" argument begins with observation and moves BACKWARD to the cause, as does Aquinas, Paley, and ID. The former is faith-based, the latter is empirically based. So you statement that "it may be true for a small number of people" is curious, to say the least. Of course intelligent design refuses to "play by the rules." The rules were set up to rule out design apriori. There is no reason, in principle, why science should not investigate design. Indeed,that was part of the scientific "rule" for centuries. This business about materialistic "rules" is an anamonly and it needs to stop. Science should be permitted to detect natural causes and design. Indeed, if you read Dembski carefully, he makes allowances for natural causes, maybe even to the point of assuming them as the norm. It is only after it becomes evident that this answer doesn't explain does he move on to a consideration of design. Can you imagine neo-Darwinists being open to alternative explantions in the same way--of course not. StephenB

I’m sure you have all heard this before, many times, but I for one have never heard a reasonable response.

My response has been that one does not have to accept ID to accept that their critique of neo-Darwinism and mindless abiogenesis is deadly accurate. ID is a suggested alternative, but one does not have to accept it to realize Behe's critique of the Darwinian mechanism is devastating as will as Bill Dembski and Robert Mark's reformulation of the No Free Lunch theorems. So if you do not accept ID but reject mindless neo-Darwinism, I respect that, and for what it's worth, that is a position which David Berlinski seems to adopt. scordova

The main reason I find myself unpersuaded by ID as a scientific approach is that it wishes to redefine science rather than play according to its rules. Any evidence for this? The greatest scientists who ever graced this planet understood that science was a way to understand "God's" Creation. So who, exactly, changed the rules? Science should only care about the reality behind our existence and the existence of everything investigated.

“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

As for "faith" seeing there isn't any scientific data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans, what does that say about the scientific merit of universal common descent? Joseph

My problem with ID (as opposed to creationism which cannot even purport to be science - though you must admit that some ID backers are creationists in disguise and therefore give people like Religious Prof fits) is that if it wants to take itself seriously as a science, it has to have some actual scientific evidence. ID does have acvtual scientific evidence to support it. Irreducible complexity is real and can be tested. If one is going to develop the hypothesis of ID, the first logical step is to find some evidence of a designer. Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are evidence for a designer. However, to start the conversation, let us say that you have found your designer... ID is NOT about the designer and it is NOT a search for the designer. how did they (it, whatever) come into existence? So if we find the designers of Stonehenge we have to find out how they came into existence before we can determine that Stonehenge was designed? That's plain dumb. I’m sure you have all heard this before, many times, but I for one have never heard a reasonable response. Your positions also turtles all the way down. What caused the "bang"? But I digress: Who Designed the Designer? enjoy... Joseph

Dr. Mcgrath (Religion Prof), Please accept my apology for the delay in posting your comments. We have set the akismet automatic spam barriers very high as we are the target of high volume spam attacks. If it is any consolation, my stuff gets trapped as well. Thank you for your comments. regards, Salvador scordova

My second post didn't get through - I did try replying. I've posted that on my blog now. I won't include the link, since that may slow the process of this appearing. All I'll say in relation to 'Rude' is that the name is apt, and that the characterization of me is far off the mark. ReligionProf

My problem with ID (as opposed to creationism which cannot even purport to be science - though you must admit that some ID backers are creationists in disguise and therefore give people like Religious Prof fits) is that if it wants to take itself seriously as a science, it has to have some actual scientific evidence. The problem with people like Behe is that he provides no credible alternative based on evidence. His argument is simply he can't believe it wasn't designed. I read 'Darwin's Black Box' when I was doing my undergrad in Biochem and even then I could easily tell the difference between an argument based on incredulity and and argument based on credible scientific fact resulting from experimental data (I also read 'The Science of God', at least Behe is not that ridiculous). If you want to be treated as science, then you have to do some and not just try and put down the other side. If one is going to develop the hypothesis of ID, the first logical step is to find some evidence of a designer. Without evidence of a designer, how can you purport design? So far, there is none that I have seen. However, to start the conversation, let us say that you have found your designer - how did they (it, whatever) come into existence? From your theory they must have been designed (unless your theory applies only to earth based organisms and/or only to beings biologically similar us which may be different that our designer - in which case, why? isn't complex still complex, even though it happened somewhere else or it isn't, say, DNA based). But, of course, it cannot be turtles all the way down. At some point complex beings must exist without the need for a designer, yes? So, if that is conceded, why must we have a designer for us? I'm sure you have all heard this before, many times, but I for one have never heard a reasonable response. Kipper

Religious Prof, None of the sciences you list have any relevance to Darwinism. Yes science works. Real science works. The kind of science that is observable, testable, repeatable, and verifiable. All of the sciences you list would fall in that category. Darwinism, however, does not since it is none of the above. You can’t support a scientific theory based on religious arguments. That is not how science works. Exposing Genesis as mythology does not solve the real scientific difficulties facing Darwinian evolution. It sounds like your view of evolution provides further support for the work of Cornelius Hunter who has exposed the religious foundations of evolution. Now don’t run away. Keep posting and defend yourself. You will find that supporters of ID will treat their critics with respect as long they are willing to treat them with respect. jjhappel

Since those in the natural sciences would generally not consider my field a science (except perhaps in Germany, where it is all Wissenschaft), I won't get entangled in a debate about the definition of science. But in terms of whether or not Darwinian evolution follows a valid and logical reasoning, it seems to me to be no more problematic than linguistics, which cannot watch Latin evolve into the modern Romance languages (much less Indo-European into Sanskrit, Latin, etc), surely the ways languages splinter and develop today, plus the 'fossils' we have in texts, make the theory of linguistic evolution as certain as anything one might claim about the past. As someone who believes that criminals are rightly convicted on the basis of forensic evidence plus deductive reasoning even when no one saw them do it, I find unpersuasive the argument that evolution is a problematic theory because it is supposedly untestable or unrepeatable. Of course, if one focuses solely on natural selection, one will of course find it unsatisfactory. One had to include other factors entirely, such as sexual selection, to account for the peacock's impressive feathers, which are presumably advantageous enough in impressing peahens that the disadvantages they must offer when it comes to quickly escaping predators and that sort of thing. I am willing to grant that for at least a small number of individuals, ID and CS are distinct. For many who use the terms, however, the distinction is at best unclear - e.g. the creators of the board game 'Intelligent Design vs. Evolution'! :) The main reason I find myself unpersuaded by ID as a scientific approach is that it wishes to redefine science rather than play according to its rules. I do not believe science requires adherence to metaphysical naturalism, but I do think it requires methodological naturalism, because science itself is about natural processes. If any agent (whether a human being, God, angels or fairies) goes into a scientist's lab late at night and tinkers with the knobs and stirs in the beakers, the experiment will be invalidated. That doesn't mean persons natural or supernatural don't have a role to play in the universe - it just means that science isn't about that, at least as the overwhelming majority of scientists understand it. ID may be based on observation, but so was Paley's design argument. Shifting it back from the macro to the micro/biochemical level doesn't change the fact that the argument seemed persuasive but turned out to be problematic, and allying oneself to the argument then as now provides ammunition to the opponents of faith, rather than helping its cause. ReligionProf

Hi Religious Prof, It is clear from your comment on biblical literalism that you do not understand the nature of intelligent design. We would all like to move on to stage two of our dialogue with Darwinists, but most of them can't get out of stage one--that's the one which keeps them laboring under the illusion that intelligent design is faith based. Permit me, therefore, to make the point again: CS moves from faith forward, ID moves from observation backward. If you cannot extricate yourself from a false premise, all the reasoning in the world cannot bring you back. Such is the nature of logic. StephenB

I can’t understand all this opposition to Darwinian evolution. People who understand the vacuity of the "theory" can. If you can embrace these other areas of science, then biological evolution as understood by science isn’t a problem. But Darwinian evolution isn't science. It cannot be tested, it cannot be verified and it cannot be repreated. Copericus was a Creationist. Galileo was also. They, along with Newton, Kepler and others saw science as a way of understanding "God's" Creation. Mendel, the father of genetics, was a Creationist. Linneaus, the father of taxonomy, was searching for the originally Created Kind. IOW all these great scientists refute your notion that science is at odds with the Bible. As for Biblical literalism- umm, that can only happen with an untranslated version. Because once a translator gets into the mix interpretations occur and "literal" gets washed away. Joseph

Religion prof.,

Spaceflight (which fails to hit the dome that Genesis says is up in the sky), Copernicanism, meteorology (what, they say there is a natural explanation for the rains? How dare they?!), genetics (what, it is a result of DNA and not simply God knitting us together in our mother’s womb?!) - in short, all of science is at odds with Biblical literalism and traditional theism. If you can embrace these other areas of science, then biological evolution as understood by science isn’t a problem. If you can’t, fighting Darwinian theory won’t solve your problem.

I would be a bit careful about projecting the typical stereotype that those here at UD are anti-science. I would wager that half of those here at UD have as much if not more science training than you do and have worked in high-tech industries as much if not more than you. If you're presuming we arrived at our disdain for Darwinism because we lack appreciation for science or that we are Biblical litearlists, you are wrong. The majority here at UD are NOT Biblical literalists (including myself) with respect to Genesis. Further, we can certainly hold our own in debates about information science as it relates to biological information. Half of those here at UD have immensely greater understanding of information dynamics than Charles Darwin, and probably a greater insight into it than most evolutionary biologists. Our disdain is rooted in the fact we see an immensely flawed hypothesis (Darwinism) being promoted as the central theory of science. Even Jerry Coyne said of his own industry, "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics." Physicst John Barrow echoed that disdain by telling Dawkins point blank that he wasn't even a scientist, but rather an evolutionary biologist. Darwinian evolution is getting far more credit than it deserves, and it is simply wrong as a scientific theory. scordova

Welcome Religion Prof, Thank you for commenting on our thread. First off, just as a purely admin note, providing URL's will sometimes trigger our automatic spam measures (which even trap my posts on occasion), so my apologies up front if your post get held up. The spam buffer also keys on certain phrases. I will endeavor to assist in making sure when you post on my threads that your voice is heard, but bear in my I can be over-ruled by the moderators. I will have more to say in the subsequent post. Thank you for visiting and raising your objections as they reflect many in academia, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to respond. scordova

Religion Prof, whose job is to trash religion, would trash ID and pay homage to Darwin on the basis that he has refuted Scripture. What he doesn’t know is that, though many of us are unimpressed with his refutation of Scripture, we do not base our disdain for Darwin and support for ID on Scripture. So I would suggest he read up on ID and then come back. If he’s an honest man he just might come back a supporter. Rude

I can't understand all this opposition to Darwinian evolution. Spaceflight (which fails to hit the dome that Genesis says is up in the sky), Copernicanism, meteorology (what, they say there is a natural explanation for the rains? How dare they?!), genetics (what, it is a result of DNA and not simply God knitting us together in our mother's womb?!) - in short, all of science is at odds with Biblical literalism and traditional theism. If you can embrace these other areas of science, then biological evolution as understood by science isn't a problem. If you can't, fighting Darwinian theory won't solve your problem. http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com ReligionProf

I looked at the ‘Evolution Sunday’ website and randomly picked one of the example sermons to look at, one attributed to a Mitch Brown, Evanston Mennonite Church, Evanston, IL. Here’s the source: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_resources.htm It would seem that any level of incomprehensible rambling is acceptable to the NCSE as long as appropriate deference is paid to the sanctioned world view. I thought about making a comment or two, but decided in the end that I'll just let it speak for itself. Here’s an excerpt:

And here we return to Karen Armstrong and a strong idea of myth. Myths are the stories that we inherit. The stories that we tell. They are revelation. Where do they come from? The come from Sinai; they come from Babylon, they come from the cross. They never come at one moment. They cannot be learned in a book. They take time, maybe not evolutionary time but they work in the same way, they build up sediments. There could be no cross without Sinai there could be no Sinai without Gilgamesh. Steven Gould, one of the predominant evolutionists of our time pointed out that evolution did not have to go as it did. If you were to rewind tape and go forward again it would not end up like this. So too with religion, our revelation is a bunch of chance encounters we who we are because of this history there had to be Babylon there had to be Egypt that had too to be Rome or we would not have the religion that we do. Is that then revelation? No. Revelation is that at every historical moment there is someone there to hear God. To respond religiously to what is happening. That is faith that response to a God who we know only through God’s historical effect. Prophets give us our revelation they respond in ways that draw us all in but each of us hears and knows God in our own way. A God who is above and beyond the world of science, the world of evolution this world is at the same time pure material they works in Darwinian ways and pure spirit. It is this world that we come to know religiously. Both together. Spirit and matter. Yes we are a slosh of chemicals.but that slosh is what we experience as spirit. So is it more truly slosh or spirit? It is both. Fully and completely both. (fully God and fully man?) Spinoza actually said this a long time ago. Do we call it God or do we call it nature? Can there be any difference?

SteveB

Look for this movement to draw heavily on the testimony of Ken Miller. Miller uses the rhetoric of Theistic evolution while believing in and practicing Darwinian evolution. Disingenuous beyond belief, he talks incessantly about his Catholicism even as he violates his Church’s teaching, which declares that materialistic evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith. The Clergy Letter Project wants to encourage more of this double-minded behavior. StephenB

hah hah! mike1962

Nice! Robo

[...] this deceptive courtship of Christians is misleading since it speaks only of ‘evolution’ and, at least here, omits mention of the theory of natural selection. In a word, any Christian who embraces the theory of evolution plus natural selection simply plays into the hands of the Darwin ideologists, and should be considered a fool. [...] Darwiniana » Clergy Letter Project