Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A sociologist’s perceptive look at “theistic evolution”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently, I have been reading Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller’s Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism, and was intrigued by his comments about “theistic evolution”, as understood by members of the American Scientific Affiliation and promoted by Francis Collins in The Language of God:

Theistic evolutionists … simply take what Collins calls ‘the existence of the moral law and the universal longing for God” as a feature of human nature that is entrenched enough to be self-validating. But is their dismissal anything more than an arbitrary theological intervention? If humans are indeed, as the Darwinists say, just one among many species, susceptible to the same general tendencies that can be studied in the same general terms, then findings derived from methods deemed appropriate to animals should apply to us as well. Collins’ own comprehensive but exclusive training in the hard sciences may explain why he believes in a God who communicates straightforwardly through the natural sciences but appears less willing to cooperate with the social sciences, including such biologically inflected fields as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Instead Collins finds intuition, anecdote, theology and sheer faith to be more reliable sources of evidence. Why God should have chosen not to rely on the usual standards of scientific rigour in these anthropocentric matters remains a mystery. (p. 104-5)

Collins is unlikely to understand the problem Fuller raises – why should anyone take Collins’s faith as anything more than an evolutionary glitch?

I am glad that a sociologist is researching the debate, because ASA-style theistic evolution makes sense only as sociology. It doesn’t make sense intellectually. As I have said elsewhere, it is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (= how you can continue to believe in God even though the universe shows no evidence of design). But everyone realizes that the universe shows evidence of design. Design theorists must explain it, and materialists must explain it away.

The other, less benign role of theistic evolution is to confuse traditional religious people by implying that, for example, “you can believe in Darwin – and Jesus too!” Well, Darwin didn’t.

The way you believe in Jesus and Darwin too is by keeping yourself in a permanent state of confusion about the basic issues, or, Collins-style, not really understanding them. Some clergy are happy to help.

A friend alerted me to this article which nicely illustrates the muddle in progress. The article features the efforts of the Vatican to address the current Darwin cult. My friend asked me for a comment, and I replied,

Well, I hope the reason they are trying to play all sides of the table (except Dawkins’s) is that they know that “evolution” is in a state of meltdown.

If not, they will soon find out. I think the Church’s antiquity is partly the result of avoiding taking a position until necessary – and there is always the Galileo affair to remind us of what happens when we fail to adopt that course.

From the news article: “In his article, “Darwinism From Different Points of View,” he explained that Darwinian theories of natural selection are only completely unacceptable to the church when they are used to become the basis for justifying certain social policies and ethical choices.”

The main problem here would be instantly identified by ID godfather Phil Johnson: If Darwinian theories are a correct account of our origin and nature, then it is reasonable to use them to justify social policies and ethical choices.

To refuse to focus on whether the Darwinian account is true raises the possibility that we regard our own bases of action as a pleasant fiction and theirs as an unpleasant one. But that is a matter of taste, surely, and the subject should be put to a vote.

If, on the other hand, we can say Darwin was wrong about human nature (for that is the point at issue), we can reject the proposed social policies that depend on them without further consideration. More important, we can defend our own proposed policies as proceeding from a correct estimation of human worth, not merely our preference.

About that question, the most obscure backwoods six-day-creation crank is far more clued in than many a Jesuit prof, I fear.

Basically, I think Fuller is right. Theistic evolution is for people who find “intuition, anecdote, theology and sheer faith to be more reliable sources of evidence” when it comes to religion, and flee the implications of design in nature. No wonder the atheistic evolutionists use them but don’t respect them.

Also, just up at Post-Darwinist

Why the education system needs to inculcate materialism and Darwinism

Now that it’s all in ruins, they’re fighting over the rubble?

Another first for Canada? Intelligent comments about intelligent design?

So what has atheism done for science lately? Hint: a bunch of atheist books that use the word “science” a lot

Clergyman: Blame Darwin, not yourself, if you are unfaithful to your spouse!

Liberal fascism: A survival manual for non-fascists in Canada (and probably in Europe)

Comments
Venus Mousetrap: You wrote: -----"The big bang is surely a perfect example of how science is NOT atheistic. Why would these atheists NOT cover up evidence which destroyed the idea of an eternal, godless universe? Could it be that science is about the evidence, not the ideology?" The issue is that the majority of atheists scientists DID NOT LIKE THE DISCOVERY. If they were not motivated by ideology, they would not have cared. -----"I’ll also bet that almost every pro-science atheist alive today accepts big bang theory. Could it be that, like scientists, atheists are also interested in evidence?" Of course they accept it. What choice do they have. The point is that DID NOT WANT IT TO BE TRUE. Do you deny this? When scientists discovered design in living organisms, a majority of biologists closed ranks and began persecuting and “expelling” ID scientists. When a scientist confirmed the “privileged planet” hypothesis, his colleagues branded him as a religious fanatic, disowned him, and put him on a hit list. -----"Well, I’d love to talk with you about ID and why people may think it has something to do with religion, but my last comment here on that subject was deleted. Irony!" If your comments were deleted, it is because you said something irrelevant or got too personal. Give it another shot. What is your objection against the concept of functionally specified complex information? If you provide a reasonable answer, you will not be deleted. If, on the other hand, you say something like, "because Judge Jones didn't agree," that might not qualify as a thoughtful response. That 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist is a documented fact. If you dispute the fact that disinterested science is becoming a less common and partisan science is becoming more common you simply need to get out of the house more. -----"um… evidence? Once again, you’re accusing the vast majority of evolutionary biologists of faking their results AND covering for each other’s fakes." That number comes from several sources---a Dartmouth study---Dave Scot on this website (Scot never fudges on facts)---Denyse O'Leary on her website citing the same study. I have also read similar studies that show 60% of mainstream scientists are agnostic atheist as opposed to 95.8% of evolutionary biologists. If you are hesitating to accept this fact because I cannot remember the link, then go ahead and console yourself that way. Scientists fake things all the time. Nick Matzke tried to devise a pathway to complexity a few years back and called it science. There was nothing to it. If there had been, ID would be out of business. Fortunately there are REAL scientists around who can evaluate this kind of stuff. -----"Scientists don’t care about the historicity of Adam and Eve when they’re doing science. They’re studying the universe, not a book. The chances are God put more of his efforts into the larger of the two." Scientists care about everything. Some of them allow their cares to contaminate their studies; some don't. The integrity of the scientist matters just as much as the reliability of his methodology. Where do you think the term "junk science" comes from.StephenB
August 14, 2008
August
08
Aug
14
14
2008
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
bFast at 61; You're right, this is a paper about the GULO pseudogene, not the HAR1F gene. I recalled it following on from your earlier correspondence with Joseph on the subject of ERVs. As it happens, Borger published two papers in J. Creation vol. 21, one on HAR1F and one on GULO, but I don't have the HAR1F one.Stephen Morris
August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
-----mynym: “An orthodox creationist argument seems to be that Scripture (i.e. the written word) should be studied first and then everything else (nature, history, life) interpreted by it, yet the Pharisees were the greatest scholars of the written word in their day and they were wrong.” -----“Given all that I would still tend to argue that your view empties some of the symbolism of animal sacrifice and so ultimately the singular significance of the Lamb of God.” My take on it is that truth is indivisible, so, naturally I will look for ways to do justice to both science and theology. I have always been convinced that neither needs to be sacrificed for the other. Indeed, my main criticisms tend toward those who would subordinate Christian theology to evolutionary biology. That is another way of saying that good science will fine tune good theology and vice versa. I do have that much faith in the unity of truth. If I am wrong, then the only other option is that theology has one truth and science has another truth. If that were the case, then we would no longer live in a rational universe. So, I try to confront the challenge that each discipline imposes on the other. I assume that carnivores were always carnivores, but that is all it is—an assumption. If, on the other hand, all animals were at peace until the fall, I could happily accept that proposition. In fact, I would prefer to believe it. I would seem to mean, though, that after the fall, God changed some basic body plans and transformed some peaceful creatures into violent creatures. It seems like a stretch, but if that is the way it went down, it’s fine with me. I do get the significance of your point about symbolism. If there was no animal death before the fall, then the act of putting an animal to death in the form of a sacrifice is truly a dramatic event. As you suggest, it would seem that the animal or the person making the sacrifice is paying an exceedingly high price. The natural reaction would be, “what a tragedy, this was not “meant” to happen. If, on the other hand, the principle of death is already “built into nature,” then, at least in a symbolic sense, that same sacrifice seems less dramatic and more ordinary. It didn’t seem to cost as much as in the first instance. Indeed, I don’t think we can fully appreciate the sacrifice made by the “Lamb of God” unless we also think how much it costs when “God becomes man.” It would be like a man giving up his human nature and becoming a dog. He would eat with dogs, sleep with dogs, and communicate with dogs only in the end to have them turn on him and tear him apart. I submit that the key to understanding the sacrifice is to focus less on the symbol of the loss and more on the magnitude of the loss, and a God has a whole lot more to lose than an animal. I don’t think the term “lamb of God” is meant to characterize the price paid so much as it is meant to symbolize a man who willingly and passively lays down his life.StephenB
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
Others are equipped with features that appear designed as a defense against predators. Apparently, animals were not designed to be always and everywhere at total peace with one another. It seems to me that interpretations of Nature are significant with respect to Christian symbolism. Given the nature of symbolism I could easily be wrong, yet if you believe that the ground was always meant to grow plants with thorns then the Christ wearing a crown of thorns may lose some of its significance. Perhaps the gardening God claims that things like thorns are a perversion of creation even if they do protect from predators? If war comes about by God's design rather than by its perversion then what's the difference between the "Prince of peace" and the "Prince of this world"? Why should we pray that God's will would be done by design on issues like disease, viruses and death if it already is? On the other hand, a typical creationist argument seems to be that God pronounced the creation "very good," therefore animals didn't die. Yet if the Lamb of God was slain before the creation of the world and predestined to happen within it then animals being sacrificed for the sake of a natural progression to man could be good, although a sacrifice is only good once it is finished. I simply don't know. Perhaps the sole strength of modern creation myths rooted in naturalism and Darwinism is that competing worldviews have no established orthodoxy with a general narrative of origins that's generally agreed on.mynym
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
In any case, while there was no human death before the fall, it would appear that animal death was part of nature’s give and take process. There are many different views and I don't know which one is correct but some are probably more biblical than others. After all, it is a "simple" matter of language whether or not a notion fits the scripts of Scripture as described by scribbling scribes throughout the millenia. Yet the issue for you doesn't seem to be a matter of interpretation of actual Scripture or patterns specified by it but rather a focus on the appearance of creation. "...it would appear [a] part of nature’s give and take process." Yet I don't know that the Bible says that the appearance of Nature and its processes will naturally cause men to come to correct conclusions about the past. Not to mention that YECs would be quick to interpret appearances differently, perhaps noting that fossilization is generally an artifact of catastrophe. Yet on the other hand it doesn't exactly say that people will come to correct conclusions as a result of studying the Bible either. An orthodox creationist argument seems to be that Scripture (i.e. the written word) should be studied first and then everything else (nature, history, life) interpreted by it, yet the Pharisees were the greatest scholars of the written word in their day and they were wrong. Given all that I would still tend to argue that your view empties some of the symbolism of animal sacrifice and so ultimately the singular significance of the Lamb of God.mynym
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
StephenB: That 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist is a documented fact. If you think that their ideology does not influence their objectivity, you have not been paying attention. If you dispute the fact that disinterested science is becoming a less common and partisan science is becoming more common you simply need to get out of the house more. um... evidence? Once again, you're accusing the vast majority of evolutionary biologists of faking their results AND covering for each other's fakes. I'm sure these people would love to know where you get off on telling them they're not doing their jobs (hint: science is about, well, NOT FAKING STUFF.) News flash—The academy does not like God. When scientists discovered the “big bang,” a majority of astronomers experienced an existential meltdown because God talk was now on the table. The big bang is surely a perfect example of how science is NOT atheistic. Why would these atheists NOT cover up evidence which destroyed the idea of an eternal, godless universe? Could it be that science is about the evidence, not the ideology? I'll also bet that almost every pro-science atheist alive today accepts big bang theory. Could it be that, like scientists, atheists are also interested in evidence? When scientists discovered design in living organisms, a majority of biologists closed ranks and began persecuting and “expelling” ID scientists. When a scientist confirmed the “privileged planet” hypothesis, his colleagues branded him as a religious fanatic, disowned him, and put him on a hit list. Well, I'd love to talk with you about ID and why people may think it has something to do with religion, but my last comment here on that subject was deleted. Irony! So now you are scandalized because I suggest that evolutionary atheists might actually not be the best people to comment on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Please! No, I'm scandalised for the reason I said - because you're throwing dirt at people without any clue as to whether it's true or not. Scientists don't care about the historicity of Adam and Eve when they're doing science. They're studying the universe, not a book. The chances are God put more of his efforts into the larger of the two.Venus Mousetrap
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
mynym: The problem is that Biblical teaching is not always explicit, sometimes it needs to be interpreted. So, part (not all) of the challenge is in establishing the criteria for a trustworthy interpreter and then finding a church or exegete that meets that criteria. In any case, while there was no human death before the fall, it would appear that animal death was part of nature’s give and take process. It would seem that God protected man from this natural phenomenon as long as he was in the state of grace. After the original sin, then, like the animals, man was subject to this law of the physical world. This seems consistent with both Scripture and our knowledge of science and it requires no extrapolation or guess work. We can, after all, observe the phenomenon in action any time we choose. Some animals seem to have been created as predators. Others are equipped with features that appear designed as a defense against predators. Apparently, animals were not designed to be always and everywhere at total peace with one another. In any case, the topic of predatory animals is not realted to the topic of polygenism, so I don't understand why it was introduced in the first place. Meat eating lions do not compromise Christian theology in the least, but polygenism wounds it fatally. From the standpoint of science, the former is an observable fact, the latter is an unwarranted speculation.StephenB
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
-----Venus Mousetrap: “StephenB: that’s correct. All scientists are atheists, even the Christian, Muslim, and Hindu ones. You see, I studied physics at university, and one of the profs in the atheist tent approached me one day… he took me into a quiet room and asked me a lot of odd questions like ‘what did I know about radioactive decay’, ‘how good was I at keeping secrets’… I was suspicious, because he wouldn’t tell me what it was all about. I didn’t see him again after that… somehow I was dropped from courses he was teaching, while my classmates were getting into positions of power…” … “do tell me if this is any more ridiculous than what you’ve tried to imply. You’ve just called scientists a bunch of liars and frauds, and… what a surprise, no evidence and a whole lot of Bible talk. Funny how those go together.” Venus Mousetrap: That 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist is a documented fact. If you think that their ideology does not influence their objectivity, you have not been paying attention. If you dispute the fact that disinterested science is becoming a less common and partisan science is becoming more common you simply need to get out of the house more. What do you think the global warming farce is all about---its about ideology---it sure isn't about good science. News flash---The academy does not like God. When scientists discovered the “big bang,” a majority of astronomers experienced an existential meltdown because God talk was now on the table. When scientists discovered design in living organisms, a majority of biologists closed ranks and began persecuting and “expelling” ID scientists. When a scientist confirmed the “privileged planet” hypothesis, his colleagues branded him as a religious fanatic, disowned him, and put him on a hit list. News flash---the academy’s distaste for God is not limited to scientists. When Mortimer Adler showed that Kant’s skepticism was unwarranted, meaning that we can have real knowledge of the world outside of our own mind, the majority of philosophers first ignored him, then lampooned him, and finally decided to follow Kant anyway because they prefer skepticism. So now you are scandalized because I suggest that evolutionary atheists might actually not be the best people to comment on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Please!StephenB
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
...while I appreciate your wanting to fit “no death before the fall”, and “only vegetarians required”, I think once again, you are taking your presuppositions into the interpretation. ...who says? There is no evidence either way. I'm not sure what has or hasn't happened but it seems to me that there is a general pattern described by scribes in the "scripts" of Scripture. Anyone more familiar with it can correct me but the pattern seems to be that Adam and Eve were vegetarians and the only reason that blood was shed and animals were killed was to cover the resulting knowledge/scientia of their sin. The fact that the shedding of the blood of animals was the fault of mankind was to be represented in animal sacrifice but the first vegetarian and animal rights activist rejected the notion that a sacrifice can make the profane sacred and decided to kill his brother instead. Things went down hill from there. After the Flood then animals were given to people to eat. Later the metaphoric Lamb of God would claim to be the ultimate sacrifice and consequently people were supposed to eat Him and so on. Generally those who believe this become gluttons for grace and want to eat all there is. At any rate, at some point the lion will lay down with the lamb so I don't know that you can say that "There is no evidence." with respect to animals eating each other and so on. It's always seemed to me that the Bible leads on back to the absence of knowledge/scientia. Philosophy properly understood is similar, so it's little wonder that many reject both.mynym
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Stephen Morris, thanks to the link to PB's paper. I chatted with him on ICSD's brainstorms when he was writing it, but I never got a copy. I now have it, and will be reading it over the next day or two. I am a bit puzzled, however, because I searched the paper for HAR1F, and found nothing. Does PB's paper discuss the HAR1F gene? If so, which page?bFast
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
DaveScot: you're kidding, no? The verb 'to go by' means... well, the clue is kind of in the words. But you know what I'm talking about. Look at the people on this thread trying to decide which science agrees with Bible passages and which doesn't. That's not ID, and it's not even theistic evolution, which is what this topic is about. It's creationism, and in some cases, it's YEC - the very same movement ID is trying to get away from.Venus Mousetrap
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
B Fast in Four:
I hold to an agency model, that there is evidence of multiple design events. Yet I do not do so for any theological reason. I would actually find the concept that God built us on law alone, and that God intentionally left himself masked to be more spiritually rewarding than believing that there are multiple acts of agency in the record, that God tweaked along the way. I hold to an agency model because of the evidence alone, not because of a religious opposition to TE.
Now there’s an honest man. Though I'm not a YEC---I confess that my preferences lie in the opposite direction—a hands on God, us in his likeness and image, the Bible as a reliable guide (as per David Klinghoffer). But my opposition to TE is not just religious—it’s that I think TE illogical and driven by a desire to be accepted by the materialist Big Boys. If Materialism falls and ID becomes the Big Boy on the Block my guess is that the same TE folks will easily fall in line. But not you, B Fast. You appear more honest than ideological.Rude
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
TomRiddle, Let me say first off I'm not a scientist. I used NS as a catch all for the mechanisms we see that do cause changes in animals. Yes, I do think it's possible that the mechanisms are there for those type changes. I don't know a YEC'r who doesn't but I don't know them all. That's the same type questions Edward Blythe was asking when he started formulating the ideas that became natural selection. Also, theologically, it's not a stretch to say that God had already included this genetic diversity. Jesus is called "the Lamb that was slain before the creation of the world." In His sovereignty God wasn't surprised by the Fall. He had planned for it in Christ before the beginning and could easily have included the the genetic information needed for these animals to diversify after the Fall. Is this what happened? That I don't know because the Bible is truly silent on that issue.ellijacket
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Venus I go by this name here and elsewhere Really. Did your parents give you that name or did you change it yourself?DaveScot
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
DaveScot: If I'm a sockpuppet I'm a pretty bad one, seeing as I go by this name here and elsewhere. I don't post at UD much (hardly surprising, seeing as I have to wait anywhere from an hour to a day longer than everyone else for my comments to appear, if they don't get deleted), so I'm not sure how you decide I've zeroed in on this one. And quite frankly, who are you to decide what I should be interested in? People are talking about science and religion, and in the process, misrepresenting one and not making the other look exactly wonderful either. I can correct them, a little at least, on the science. And it's hardly God-bashing to point out when claims are made without evidence.Venus Mousetrap
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
TomRiddle, " Also, the animals did not eat each other in the garden who says? There is no evidence either way. So, you take the silence, and insert your own interpretation so that it fits whatyou believe - but, the Bible doesn’t discuss it. Now, you may very well be right, but it is an assumption you are making." -------------- Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. I would not call the above verses "no evidence either way", "silence" or "the Bible doesn't discuss it". It seems that the Bible not silent at all about this. God gave every green herb for meat "...to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life." As far as spiders and lions go who says they were in their current form in the Garden? God says he created animals by their kinds. It's very possible to have a kind or kinds of cats that do not eat meat and after the fall they could easily change through natural selection. Same for spiders.ellijacket
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Venus Mousetrap Since I know you're a sock puppet I want to ask you why of all the threads on Uncommon Descent you'd want to zero in on one with a theological topic? Interested in God are you? Or just gratuitous God bashing? Find a different thread or get lost.DaveScot
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
bFast, A thought-provoking paper and a long thread that it stimulated can be found at: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000656.html I'm sure there are ways of shoe-horning this into common descent. Over at PT they seem to saying that primates and guinea pigs conserve the genes of the original common ancestor and other animals (rats in particular) that have diverged. I don't find this terribly convincing.Stephen Morris
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
Stephen Morris, "The HAR1F/GULO gene sequence in guinea pigs is a compelling argument against common descent." Wow, I missed something here! Even googling about, I can't find the case that the HAR1F in guinea pigs challenges common descent. I can find a thread on panda's thumb that argues exactly the opposite, but even they do not present the issue is a nice, clear, concise package. Can you present the "how on earth can common descent explain this" case re HAR1F and guinea pigs?bFast
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
ellijacket, while I appreciate your wanting to fit "no death before the fall", and "only vegetarians required", I think once again, you are taking your presuppositions into the interpretation. you say: Also, the animals did not eat each other in the garden who says? There is no evidence either way. So, you take the silence, and insert your own interpretation so that it fits what you believe - but, the Bible doesn't discuss it. Now, you may very well be right, but it is an assumption you are making. Spiders and many other animals CANNOT subsist on veggies. They are classic "meatasourises". Do you think after the Fall, all these animals had their internal anatomies changed? What about canines in lion's teeth? They are designed to rip flesh. Are you saying that they started to grow canines after the Fall? Now, you could say "God created canines because he knew the Fall was coming". But, that is trying to twist theology to fit scientific evidence. That is what I am struggling with, and am trying to reconcile in my own mind. Also, you still have to deal with the anatomy of things like spiders, as I mentioned earlier. Perhaps (and I'm not certain), Earth was still a place where people could "walk with God", and then when the time comes, join him in eternity. After all, we are eternal beings, so why have an Earth that gets over crowded, and is separated from God? Maybe God always intended for Adam to walk with him for hundreds of years, and then call him home. Where does it say that Earth was ever our true home.TomRiddle
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
StephenB: that's correct. All scientists are atheists, even the Christian, Muslim, and Hindu ones. You see, I studied physics at university, and one of the profs in the atheist tent approached me one day... he took me into a quiet room and asked me a lot of odd questions like 'what did I know about radioactive decay', 'how good was I at keeping secrets'... I was suspicious, because he wouldn't tell me what it was all about. I didn't see him again after that... somehow I was dropped from courses he was teaching, while my classmates were getting into positions of power... ... do tell me if this is any more ridiculous than what you've tried to imply. You've just called scientists a bunch of liars and frauds, and... what a surprise, no evidence and a whole lot of Bible talk. Funny how those go together.Venus Mousetrap
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
bfast: "This thread is frustrating. If all I knew about ID was in this thread, I would agree with those who claim that ID is just creationism (YEC) in a cheap tuxedo — that ID is not presenting the whole truth about what its position is, but lying to score a few points." Why be frustrated. This thread is, or was supposed to be, about the sociology of theistic evolution. Not every discussion on UD is pure science. If anyone is frustrated it should be those who witnessed the subject matter morph from its original intent (TEs who flee the implications of design) to what it is now (a restricted discussion about data). ------"ID’s motto is to follow the evidence where it leads. The majority of posters on this thread cherrypick evidence to fit their interpretation of an open Bible. This is no way to do science, folks!? The original subject matter relates to theology at least as much as science. Those who are interested only in science are given plenty of threads to express themselves in that limited context.StephenB
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Stephen Morris: Congratulations on an excellent post. You provided a great deal of substance with very few words. All: On matters relating to the origins of the human race, the issue is less about accepting the "findings" of science and more about choosing which scientist you care to believe. Polygenism is not a scientific slam dunk and not all scientists argue for it. In terms of reconciling science with the Bible, the real question is this: How good is the science and how fair are the scientists? Inasmuch as 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are agnostic/atheist, I am not about to give them the benefit of the doubt when they speculate about human origins. They may know a little something about how genetic diversity develops, but they know absolutely nothing about how genetic diversity came into being. I submit that the vast majority of biologists and geneticists have chosen to rule out monogenism in principle just as they have chosen to rule out intelligent design in principle. For many of them, the purpose of research is to create the desired outcome. With a misplaced assumption or an unjustified extrapolation here and there, they can make a scientific study say anything they want it to say. On the theological front, the Biblical teaching on monogenism is clear. Through one man, sin entered into the world. Polygenism creates serious theological difficulties when we consider the implications of original sin and its transference through all of humanity. If a group of people existed in the beginning of time and only two of them sinned, then God’s judgment against humanity would be unjust because not all human beings descended from the two that committed the offense. Also, the prospect of multiple first parents places Old Testament typology at variance with New Testament history. Among other discontinuities, it characterizes the old Adam as a group and the new Adam (Christ) as an individual. Why rewrite Scripture to accommodate a best guess scenario (polygenism) that is just as likely to be wrong as right?StephenB
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
The HAR1F/GULO gene sequence in guinea pigs is a compelling argument against common descent, but I tend to see this as being beside the point anyway unless and until someone can posit an objective way of differentiating between 'common descent' and 'common design'. In species which are similar in morphology and in gene sequence as a result of either, similar response to similar pathogens is hardly surprising under either view. As a former TE-er turned YEC-er, I found theological arguments of the sort put so eloquently by Apollos and Ellijacket ultimately convincing. I sympathize with bFast's dilemma, though, and I think the answer is (as Hugh Akston in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' would have stated it) - "check your premises". As Atom has pointed out in a few places in this thread, the issues with reconciling biblical theology and current scientific orthodoxy simply disappear if the assumptions behind the latter are properly examined. Remove Lyell's "principle of uniformitarianism", an unproveable axiom if ever there was one, and the whole edifice of Darwinism comes crashing down without even a puff of wind. Speaking as a physicist, I have something of a problem with the whole concept of trying to use scientific means to establish what may or may not have happened in the distant past. The oft-disputed Second Law of Thermodynamics, whatever construction you put upon it, tells us at the very least that we cannot put "t=-t" and extrapolate current states backwards in time to previous states, as these previous states are by definition much less 'probable' than we could ever infer from contemporary observations. Add in the mere possibility of an intelligent designer outside the system, and all bets are off. The appeal of ID, then, as a scientific discipline is that unlike Darwinism OR 'Creation Science' (which are both as bad as each other in this respect) it seeks not to speculate about past events but to make inferences from contemporary observations. In other words, we can seek understanding of whether or not the natural world shows evidence of design by looking at the world as it is today. This places it on a much surer footing, while also comfortably accommodating the range of views about those past events that we have witnessed in this thread.Stephen Morris
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
How odd, my last comment was in moderation and it disappeared. Shall I repost it?Venus Mousetrap
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
The Darwinists insist on using the term "intelligent design creationism." But how about "ID common descent"? Or "ID changes with time"? Or "ID front-loaded evolution"? Why not just plain "intelligent design" -- ID is compatible with all of these other ideas. We should give the Darwinists a taste of their own medicine by using the term "evolution atheism."Larry Fafarman
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Joseph:
Too bad there isn’t any which would demonstrate that any amount of accumulated mutations can account for all the differences observed between chimps and humans.
Hold it. It appears that you have made a leap here. Just because I hold to common descent, that doesn't mean that I hold to the neo-Darwinian belief that random variation, filtered by natural selection can account for the differences between human and chimp. Far from it. I see, for instance, the HAR1F gene which has taken on 18 non-contiguous point mutations. This particular gene is ultra-conserved in all quadrupeds -- except humans. It seems to play a role in brain development. All good logic suggests that it cannot be accounted for by any reasonable random event. IE, I am an IDer!bFast
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Oops- gunea pigs, not hamsters. And it is a "pseudo"gene, not and ERV- start on page 133 third paragraph. The SAME shared errors, which must have occurred in parallel. I would say read the entire chapter 5- it answers quite a bit pertaining to alleged shared mistakes.Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
bFast- I like data too. Too bad there isn't any which would demonstrate that any amount of accumulated mutations can account for all the differences observed between chimps and humans. As for the hamster/ humann ERV thing- it's in "the Design of Life"- I am looking for the page...Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Joseph:
And humans share ERVs with hamsters and not chimps. So does that mean we evolved from hamsters?
Joseph -- sounds like data. I like data. A few questions: 1 - Are the ERVs in humans and hamsters "at the exact same place" (relative to known genes)? If not, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the same virus affected both humand and hamster. Remember that retroviruses are caused by the activity of a virus. 2 - Could the ERV in humans and hamsters exist in most mammals that proportedly share a common ancestor with both humans and hamsters? This would suggest that the effect is caused by a deletion in chimps. 3 - How many ERVs are known to be shared by humans and creatures farther separated than the proported chimp-human ancestor but not shared by the chimp? Are there any shared by chimp and hamster, but not by human? The more such events that can be found the greater the challenge they present to common descent. 4 - What is your source of information on this? Ie, can you provide a citation? Joseph:
Are you saying that diseases are beneficial and that is why these were kept over the eons?
No. I am saying that in a recessive gene, the effect of these destructive mutations only shows up once in a million births. As such, it offers sufficiently little disadvantage to behave more like random drift than like a bad thing. ellijacket:
I just come at this from a different angle. God’s Word can be trusted as written. Everything else is held up to it never the other way around.
I see it as follows: 1, the Bible, a complex text, is interpreted by fallable humans. Even amongst those theologians that hold a literalist interpretation, there can be quite a broad range of interpretation. I therefore do not see it possible to say "the Bible says this, therefore ..." rather "the Bible says this, by time we meld the Bible with all of the other things the Bible says, by time we factor in history, we come to interpret that the Bible means this." The Bible says that nature itself reveals God. As such the evidence found in nature should be revelation of God on equal footing. The evidence of nature goes through a similar process of interpretation that the Bible does. Scientists say, "the evidence from nature is this, once we push compare the evidence with all of the other evidence, after we apply our philosophical filters, we conclude this." So to me, both Biblical evidence and evidence from nature are on equal footing -- pre-interpreted evidence. Both my understanding of the Bible and my understanding of nature are also on an equal footing -- evidence that has been (to some extent, eroneously) interpreted. However, if both the truth of nature and the truth of the Bible are truth as I understand truth to be, then the two streams of knowledge should find a meeting point once both interpretations are correct. ellijacket:
I do think it’s the pot calling the kettle black though talking about cherry picking evidence.
I assure you that I try really hard to not through out evidence that I am aware of. I certainly am not aware of all evidence. I will say, however, that I have tested many lines of evidence presented by the YEC community and found the interpretation thereof to miserably fail the test of close examination.bFast
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply