Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Has the American Scientific Affiliation Forgotten Their Stated Identity?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

According to Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a plenary session speaker at the July 2011 American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) annual meeting, anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact and the reason that many Evangelical Christians do not believe it is that the “science is complex and they cannot see it happening in their own backyards.” In her opinion, Christian groups are exacerbating the problem by “lying and spreading false information” about global warming, even though “98% of scientists agree that it is settled science.” She said that this is an example of where science and faith are in conflict (?) and we need to educate our churches about the issue so that they understand that questioning anthropogenic global climate change is anti-science. Of course, it seems to me, that if they are willfully lying about the issue, questioning must also be anti-Christian.

Now, hear me accurately. I am not saying that anthropogenic climate change is or is not true—I am not a climate scientist. And I do agree with Dr. Hayhoe that we should be responsible in how we use the Earth’s resources and mindful of those who are victims of natural disaster. I have implemented her only suggestion for remediation by using Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs and have even gone one better—I walk to the grocery store. But seriously, I do not consider it to be anti-science or unChristian to be intrigued that Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel prize winning physicist, and Dr. Harold Lewis, physics professor emeritus from University of California, Santa Barbara resigned their memberships at the American Physical Society (APS) over the APS’s refusal to consider all the scientific evidence surrounding this issue. I believe that evidence should be heard and considered and that those who do not agree with the politically correct consensus should not be labeled as uneducated or unChristian. Naturally, after a talk like this, those who had questions about the veracity of manmade global climate change or the cost/benefit ratio of governmental policies on controlling carbon dioxide emissions did not feel free to ask questions.

As a current ASA member, I was in attendance at the ASA meeting entitled, Science-Faith Synergy: Glorifying God and Serving Humanity. The result is that I have become very concerned about this organization. It appears that the ASA has forgotten who they are supposed to be: “a fellowship of men and women of science and disciplines that can relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.” Instead, the meeting was explicitly slanted towards promotion of consensus science, theistic evolution (TE) and what appeared to be a very watered down version of Christianity. ASA says that they have “no official position on evolution” and are a Christian organization that “accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct,” but the content of several of the talks and the attitude of some of the speakers at the conference failed to embrace this commitment. The below paragraph was taken from the ASA website:

As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing an open forum where [scientific] controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth.

Although this statement projects the appearance of an environment where integrity in science and scientists who want to discuss their thoughts and follow the evidence where it leads could thrive, this is far from accurate. The purported openness to discussion of scientific controversies expressed on the ASA website is clearly disingenuous.

In fact, the organization appears to have strayed far from both their commitment to integrity in science (telling the whole story) and their Christian identity and is now ostracizing both scientists who question consensus science and those who are self-identified evangelical Christians. As a result, science-based reservations about evolution, global warming, and other controversial topics were not openly discussed. One scientist, who believes that Intelligent Design (ID) theory has merit from a scientific viewpoint, identified himself to me with the words, “feels like hostile territory here.” Speakers who made lock-step derogatory remarks about “conservative Christians,” “creationists,” and “ID people” doubtless fueled this perceived hostility.

Of the presenters I heard, Dr. Mark Winslow of Southern Nazarene University in Oklahoma was particularly offensive, labeling anyone who does not accept all aspects of evolutionary theory as “scientifically and theologically illiterate.” His paper was on how 15 Christian students moved from an “immature Young Earth perspective” with “little tolerance for ambiguity” to an “adult faith” that can “accommodate degrees of dissonance” after accepting the “authority” of the “trained evolutionist” professor. Take home message: If one questions aspects of evolution, one is an immature Christian. Those who are faced with educating recalcitrant churches full of Darwin-doubters were counseled to show patience until the creationists come to understand that the scientific evidence should be more important than the Bible in their formation of a worldview. I hope he did not mean that!

Despite the fact that the ASA conference brochure says presenters should maintain a “humble and loving attitude towards individuals who have a different opinion,” a moderator in the session then repeated Dr. Winslow’s slur about illiteracy as if it were a joke, instead of deeply offensive to those who have science-based reservations about the merits of some aspects of evolutionary theory.

Until this ASA meeting I did not really think that the debate about evolution was terribly relevant to Christian faith and, as a former research scientist, I knew that doubting the evolutionary dogma does not affect my ability to “do” science. Personally, I “believed in” evolution for twenty years after I made my decision to profess faith in Christ. It was not my faith that caused me to question aspects of evolution or to consider that there is merit to ID. Rather, it was the science, the cell biology.

I am currently a self-confessed evolutionary agnostic—I see that there is intriguing scientific evidence for some aspects of evolution, but also acknowledge that there are holes in that evidence. For example, my knowledge of the cell shows me that the stated mechanism whereby macroevolution is said to proceed does not work. I see logic in the view of ID proponents, but also realize that ID is a theory in process. I find TE both academically and theologically frustrating. Academically, I am unwilling to commit to having the faith necessary to believe that the whole of evolutionary theory will be proven right eventually. Theologically, I am confused about the presupposition that, even though God created the world, His action must by definition be completely undetectable. I thought that I would find many like-minded people at a conference for Christians in science. After all, scientists are known for having questioning minds and Christians value humility, so Christian scientists should be very willing to consider that their scientific or theological understanding is probably incomplete.

But, what I learned at the ASA conference was that reason the debate over evolution matters is that it is a symptom of a much more serious disease: the elevation of the authority of science and the scientific community above the claims and values of the Bible and Christianity. Scientism is a belief system where science becomes the preeminent way to ascertain all truth, making scientists—well, very important people. Symptoms of scientism much in evidence at the ASA conference were the repeated assertions that “all real scientists think…” and the communicated attitude that we need to accept the consensus of the scientific community and, if necessary, change our interpretation of the Bible to fit with the science.

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), exemplifies this type of thinking when he says, “And people are beginning to argue in very irrational ways based on a lack of understanding what the science says. If we could back off from all of the, sort of, hard edged rhetoric and really say, okay, what is science teaching us, I suspect that the moral dilemmas [involved with the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes] are not nearly as rough as people think they are.” The idea that science should inform our interpretation of Scripture contains some truth and some untruth (e.g. science being able to teach us morality), as do most harmful ideas. Unfortunately, at much of the ASA meeting, it was the first step on a slippery slope to so much more.

Dr. Gareth Jones gave another of the plenary session lectures. During the first part of the talk on neuroscience and reproduction, he set up a hypothetical situation wherein a couple already have a child with a genetic disease, have a ¼ chance of their next child also having the disease, do not feel that they could cope with the stress and work of another sick child, but would like more children. Dr. Jones outlined that this couple has four options.
1) Decide not to have more children,
2) Take the risk and have a child,
3) Conceive a child, have pre-birth testing, and abort if the child has the disease, and
4) Donate eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization and genetic testing,
with the intention of not implanting any defective embryo. Dr. Jones stated that Options 1, 2 and 4 are the only ones that would be acceptable for a Christian, making it appear as if he is assuming that human life does not begin at conception. A questioner who asked about a 5th option (birth followed by adoption) was shot down with the reply that that this would still allow a “defective” person to be born and that “freely chosen ignorance is not a virtue.”

Dr. Francis Collins, who is a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian and long time member of the ASA, also seems unclear about the ethics of using human embryos for research. He says that “human embryos deserve moral status” but that it may be more ethical to use the 400,000 embryos that are currently frozen for “breathtakingly” beneficial research than to “discard them.” If the leading scientist in our country believes this, why then should an ASA plenary session speaker commit to the Biblical view that human life from conception onwards is sacred, as is espoused in Ps 139:13? One may argue that the ASA is a place where all views can be discussed “without fear of unjust condemnation,” but this should surely be held in tension with their self-proclaimed acceptance of Biblical authority.

The ASA bias towards a liberal form of Christianity and elevating science above Scripture continued. During parallel session talks on the ethics of neuroscience and reproduction by a number of speakers, attendees at the ASA meeting were informed that science shows that sexuality is fluid and so it might be unethical to offer help to those wanting to change their sexual orientation (or identity). After all, the scientific consensus is that one does not choose to be homosexual, transgendered, or even a pedophile. Dr. Heather Looy, a psychologist from King’s University College, was concerned that we be compassionate and not keep homosexual people from enjoying a full sexual experience. A lovely person herself, who practices what she preaches, she stressed that we should not judge those different from ourselves. Dr. William Struthers from Wheaton acknowledged that the traditional family unit with a father and a mother is best for children, but also explained that gender is a spectrum and that Christians should hold science and Scripture in tension, realizing that God is love incarnate.

Of course, Christians should be aware that we are all sinners saved by grace and this should make us as compassionate to those caught in sexual sin as we would want them to be towards us in our sin. In addition, we all have character traits that predispose us to be more tempted by certain sins than we are by others. You may be tempted to sleep with someone of the same gender; I would be more tempted by a juicy piece of gossip. Giving in is sin, no matter the temptation. However, the traditional understanding of the Biblical teaching is that that the Lord gave us rules for our benefit and safety, not because He wants to be a spoilsport, and that obedience, no matter how difficult, is always the best way to attain fullness of joy. The current politically-correct scientific consensus does not negate this. For Christians science does not trump the Bible.

Finally, there were several presentations on why science must be methodologically naturalistic and why we should help our churches to accept that evolution is a fact. The final session was offered by Ruth Bancewicz from the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University on a course called Test of Faith. The purpose of Test of Faith, which is now travelling the country giving presentations at places like Gordon College, MIT, Wheaton, Fairfax Community Church, Bethel University, Point Loma Nazarene, and California Institute of Technology sounds wonderful and very in keeping with both good science and Christianity. It is to show how science is compatible with faith by highlighting various believing scientists. But, the producers have a self-admitted bias towards theistic evolution, as do the majority of the scientists (Francis Collins, Jennifer Wiseman, and John Polkinghorne), and so only represent a part of the entire community of Christians in science. Certainly, although there is a lot of recommended reading on their website, I could find no mention of Stephen Meyers’ Signature in the Cell or Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution. Test of Faith has been working with Youth for Christ, ASA, and the Bible Society and is well-funded by the Templeton Foundation.

So, what is the worry? The entire picture. ASA and BioLogos, the organization started by Dr. Francis Collins, and Test of Faith, backed by Templeton Foundation money, working together to convert the Christian world to a belief in evolution and, if the parts of the ASA meeting that I witnessed were anything to go by, a very watered down version of Christianity. These groups are also working with InterVarsity Fellowship, Youth for Christ, and the Bible Society. They are targeting universities, seminaries, and churches with their message that belief in evolution is compatible with faith and that all people of intelligence should embrace evolutionary theory as fact. Quite apart from the scientific problems with this view, some people are questioning whether the faith that is being espoused is still orthodox Christianity. The fruit of the ASA meeting, which included arguing based on ad hominem attacks, advocating a type of Scientism, equivocating about the sanctity of life, and disregarding Biblical standards for sexuality, suggests that it is not. ASA has forgotten its stated identity. ASA has lost its way.

Personally, I hope that, with the help and support of those of us who disagree with the turn they have taken, the ASA will get back on track. I’ll be looking forward to next year’s meeting in San Diego! Meanwhile, why not check out a scientific association that really does encourage the open discussion of controversial subjects in a non-hostile environment? American Institute for Technology and Science Education (AITSE) is such a place. Our vision is to promote good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus. Our mission is ”…to improve science education and encourage scientific integrity” and “offer clear, reliable and balanced education with the goal of liberating science and technology from ideology, politics and the restrictions of consensus…”

Dr. Caroline Crocker, who holds an MSc in medical microbiology and a PhD in immunopharmacology, is President of AITSE. If you enjoyed this article, please “like” AITSE on Facebook, follow Caroline on Twitter, and sign up for AITSE’s monthly newsletter. If you would like to help AITSE with its work to restore integrity to science, please donate generously. Finally, if you are a scientist or physician of integrity, please consider applying to join AITSE’s scientific consortium. Together we can make a difference.

Comments
Thank you, Elizabeth. Here do you notice engagement with someone who takes ideology seriously, i.e. Timaeus? Timaeus' opponents are 'theistic evolutionists,' 'evolutionary creationists' and '(neo-)Darwinists.' No doubt he has thought considerably about the impact of ideology on science, within his USAmerican PoS. My opponents are 'evolutionists' (of all non-naturalistic stripes) and 'naturalists' (who accept a particular type of reductionism, privileging 'natural' sciences above 'extra-natural' sciences). I am applying a non-naturalistic, pre- & post-evolutionary approach in my work, which has been accepted and published in various scholarly venues in several countries. Indeed, this move is actually closer to Phillip E. Johnson's work contra-naturalism, though without his black-and-white evangelicalism. Of course, he & I both accept the reality of a Mind behind or within the rational order of the universe. But we see a very different order in human society and culture (i.e. in 'extra-natural' categories), based on who we are and where we come from and have lived. To ignore ideology is to imagine that words make no difference to lyrical music. Just the sound please, without the meaning...Gregory
February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Very nice essay, Gregory!Elizabeth Liddle
February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Some time has passed since Timaeus’ last message and since he repeated that he would not respond to me again in the thread, I thought it not good use of my time to respond to his message right away. Let me now make just a few key points to Timaeus and this Blog: 1) Timaeus agreed with me that YEC is ‘bad science’ (his words) – we can thus fairly assume that Timaeus is not a ‘young earth creationist’ – but that for some reason he feels it is unimportant for ID to take a stand on the scientific question of the age of Earth (or that it is important for ID *not* to take a stand on age of Earth), even if that topic is often associated with the ‘controversy’ over evolution and Darwinian scientific thought. I objected to this avoidance, but Timaeus stood his ground. 2) As a scholar in the human-social sciences, I study the so-called ‘effects of intelligence’ almost every single day of my life. Does that make me, unavoidably, an advocate of ‘intelligent design,’ in so far as what I’m doing is scientific and/or scholarly? For some reason, I gather Timaeus would try to suggest something like ‘then you’re actually one of us’ simply because I study (the effects of) intelligent agents. He would be wrong to suggest this, however. It is rather that my fields of study are ‘outside’ of the ‘us’ that currently constitutes the intelligent design movement (IDM). ID is currently a ‘movement’ or ‘paradigm’ of thought that does not actually include study of ‘intelligent designers’ (cf. ‘designers’ that/who are ‘intelligent’). 3) After suggesting “It is not true that ID people have no insight into the social sciences and humanities,” Timaeus suggested to me: “Why not start by reading their books?” As it is, I’ve already read some of their books. In fact, I attended the Discovery Institute’s Summer Program for university students in 2008; John West was the leader of the section on “Intelligent Design in the Social Sciences and Humanities.” He and I had several one-on-one discussions about ‘id/ID’ and ‘social sciences and humanities.’ We had Weikart’s Darwin to Hitler book on the reading list, along with a book by Jay Richards. But it is not my intention to share secrets about that event/program here at this venue now or to speak about the 'ID' and non- or anti-ID books I've read in 'social sciences and humanities.' The point to note is that I’ve seen the ‘inside’ of the IDM via the DI and have survived as a non-IDist to speak about it. 4) Whether or not USAmerican sociology is ‘enslaved by Darwinism’ is debatable. 'Evolutionism' is the more operative and functional ideology, since Darwin’s views are mainly from and for the natural sciences. Yes, Darwin’s Descent of Man overlaps into psychology and anthropology, but the real discussion involves ‘neo-evolutionary’ ideas, moving up to M. Harris, S. Sanderson, Richerson and Boyd, and the Lenskis and on to the recent section on "Evolution, Biology and Society" of the ASA (http://www2.asanet.org/sectionevol/syllabi.html). Timaeus is nonetheless suggesting ‘enslavement’ in fields that he is not trained or particularly knowledgeable in, but yes, we could agree to some degree on the influence of evolutionistic ideology in those fields. Why then does William Dembski support the ideology of technological evolutionism, without having yet made clear ‘which evolutions’ he accepts from those he rejects (e.g. eVo economics, eVo sociology, neo-eVo anthropology, etc.)? And why does the DI's existence make no difference on the topic of socio-cultural evolutionism, when it's main organ includes 'culture' (Centre for Science and CULTURE) in its title? 5) As a point of fact: 7 out of 35 Fellows (when last I counted) at the Discovery Institute have higher education (university) degrees in theology. In my view, that is more than ‘a few,’ as Timaeus suggested. Theologians are openly courted by the DI; this is no secret. What is (or seems to still be) a secret, however, is the explicit link between ID and theology in IDM collective expressions. When will there be a text that explores the theological/worldview ‘implications’ of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ (theory) with the new meaning of ‘science’ that the IDM is hoping to spread and to make popular? This message is aimed to over-lap with Dr. Caroline Crocker's OP re: ASA and its predominant rejection of both ID and YEC and I have alerted her to its posting. Gregory “Design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along-side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self-organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric.” – Bruce Gordon (DI Fellow)Gregory
February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
Gregory (46.1.1.1.1): I thank you for your further reply. Unfortunately, because of its length, I cannot hope to engage in a point by point response, or even to address the majority of the points that you make. I am pleased that you think my response was civil and thoughtful. However, it appears, from a number of things that you say in your current reply, that you have not fully understood what I have been arguing. I thought that I had gone out of my way to agree with much that you have stated. I opposed reductionism; I opposed the imperialism of Darwinism over the social sciences; I criticized the methodological naturalism/metaphysical naturalism distinction and praised Steve Fuller. I also went out of my way to make clear what I was *not* saying, so that you would not continue to criticize me for things that I was not asserting. But most of what I wrote appears to have been of no avail, as you continue to accuse me of undermining social science (and the humanities!) and continue to accuse me (and ID people) of saying things that I have not said (and that they have not said). I don't know how to get over this impasse. If my already-long previous replies weren't sufficient, I don't see how writing even longer replies would help any. At a certain point, more words confuse things rather than help them. It is not true that ID people have no insight into the social sciences and humanities. John West is a trained political scientist who has debated the implication of Darwin's *Descent of Man* with political theorist Larry Arnhart. Jay Richards has a Ph.D. in Theology and Philosophy. Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies (as well as in Biology). Richard Weikart has a Ph.D. in History, and has written extensively on the social consquences of Darwinism. William Dembski has a degree in Psychology. It is true that ID is not rich in sociologists, but it cannot be accused of being unaware of the social sciences and humanities. Even the lack of sociologists among ID people is not necessarily a bad thing. Most ID proponents are Americans, and sociology as they know it -- American sociology -- embodies all of the things you criticize -- it tends to be reductionist, left-wing ideological, and shallow. Maybe if ID proponents were located in a European nation, where sociology is more philosophically sophisticated, they would be more interested in it. But as it has so frequently in North America been enslaved by Darwinism and other reductionisms, it is no wonder that they ignore it. You should be applauding the ID people for their good instincts in avoiding the intellectual wasteland that is American sociology. Your remarks about Behe are inappropriate. He is the least pretentious writer in the whole field of ID, TE and atheist writers, and his modesty and humility deserve a better treatment than your remarks offer. As for the contents of his remark, I don't find them objectionable. If ID can show that we are *not* the product of chance, but of design, then a massive reorientation of the humanities and social sciences will inevitably follow. This is obvious to anyone who understands the history of ideas and is aware how much the "chance" notion has permeated every field of the social sciences and humanities, and has altered our human self-conception. You seem to speak out of confusion. On the one hand, you lambaste ID people for speaking outside of their fields when it comes to social sciences and humanities; on the other, you demand that they become explicitly involved in theology, a field in which only a few of them are trained. So which do you want, Gregory? For ID people to stick narrowly to their expertise, and shut up about everything else? Of for them to risk applying their ideas to other fields? You can't criticize them both ways. But that's what you are doing. If Behe rests his fame on the biochemical arguments in his books, you blame him for refusing to engage in theology, for "compartmentalizing." But when he makes a very bland, very general remark that ID has implications for the humane sciences, you jump all over him for not being trained in those sciences. He's damned if he compartmentalizes, and damned if he doesn't. There is no pleasing you. You are a social scientist, and there is nothing wrong with that. But by your own admission you know little about biology. The debate between the ID people and the Darwinists is mostly over biology (and over the philosophy of natural science as it pertains to biology). No one can force you to be interested in that debate if biology does not turn you on. But it's imperialistic of you to be suggesting that ID people and Darwinists are wasting their time in having their debate, and that they should be arguing about things that social scientists argue about instead. Would you tell a classical musician that he should stop playing Mozart and start playing Shania Twain? Frankly, it's none of your business what people in other intellectual fields want to argue about. If you are competent to discuss biology, you can jump into the ID-Darwinist debates. If you are incompetent, or uninterested, you can keep aloof from them. But for you to say or imply that the debates are a waste of time, or misconceived, or that ID people should really be doing social science or theology, simply because *your* interests are in social science and theology, is intellectual bullying. Gregory, there are thousands of people on the internet, debating daily over Darwinian mechanisms vs. intelligent design. You are not going to stop these people from focusing on biology. Your continued attempts to derail the biological discussions of ID proponents will come to nothing, so you are wasting your time by complaining about the biology focus. You are spitting into the wind. If you really want to *connect* with ID people, Gregory, rather than to engage in confrontation with them, I have a very useful suggestion. You are not a biologist, but you are a social scientist. You are interested in opposing Darwinian imperialism in social sciences and social policy matters. Well, two ID proponents who agree with you are John West and Richard Weikart. They devote themselves, not to arguments about irreducible complexity and probability theory, but to showing the internal incoherence of Darwinian thought on human nature, and the socially destructive aspects of Darwinian thought in the human/social sphere. That ought to be right up your alley. Why not start by reading their books? You might be pleasantly surprised. And I guarantee that you will find no discussions of that sort, on that academic level, anywhere in TE-dom, or on any of the atheist Darwinist sites. ID people may focus primarily on biology, but despite that focus, they do more justice to extra-biological questions than anyone else in the arena. You won't get ID to redefine itself to please you, but if you give it half a chance, you might find some useful conversation partners among ID proponents. You can reply again, but this will be my last word on this thread. T.Timaeus
November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Timaeus: Sunday greetings! Thanks for your replies. Yes, it is busy times for me also. I send this because of its higher level of dialogue and more than 2000 visits, suggests that perhaps interest in this thread can somehow continue. Let me begin by clarifying something I said wrt Dr. Crocker, as I don’t wish to put words or motivations in her mouth and could have been clearer with what I wrote at one point above, wrt her position. “You likewise need to be promoting ‘good theology’…in the name of _____ or ‘intelligent design’ (and its implications) too. Indeed, this is what Dr. Crocker is saying is needed at ASA; I’m suggesting it is needed at DI also.” - Gregory To be clear, Dr. Crocker did not suggest an ‘ID-theology’ is needed at ASA, but rather that ‘good theology’ is needed there; not just theology cow-towed to scientism, geneticism or climate change alarmism – i.e. bowing to ideologies. In other words, she was implying that theology is important at such an organization as ASA, and that in her view they have perhaps for some reason ‘lost their way’ as a particular evangelical Christian organization, the largest of its kind in USA. My apologies if I wronged her by making it seem that she is promoting ID-theology, when as far as I know, she hasn’t said that within her program of encouraging ‘scientific integrity.’ Turning then to the discussion with Timaeus, for the record, he (or she) has not responded to me in private at the e-mail address I provided. The offer is still there, though from what he (based on Greek character, if I may presume gender) wrote above, there seems to be a huge, perhaps insurmountable gap in the way we are approaching ‘design’ and ‘intelligence’ as well as what they (could) mean to people around the world, not just in the USA. “When I spoke of what unites the ID people and what unites the Darwinians, I was speaking of what unites each group insofar as it genuinely addresses the science of nature, and does not intrude upon that science with ideological concerns.” – Timaeus Both ‘Darwinists’ and ‘IDists’ simply *are ideological* as soon as (more accurately, before) they open their mouths. Thus, Timaeus, the ‘science without ideological concerns’ gambit you are attempting is not worth my effort to counter; it is a fantasy easily check-mated. You are playing the game the way your opponents want you to play, rather than forging a winning new strategy for the future. I do not write for Ruse, Coyne, Dawkins or Ken Miller as audience; why do you? ‘Darwinism’ is obviously not just ‘the biological theory of evolution by natural selection,’ as BioLogos used to publically call it (stamped by D. Alexander’s TE/EC-Faraday Institute authority), but is rather ‘ideology parading in scientific garb.’ This is a huge problem in Anglo-American S&R discourse. Once you understand this re-prioritization, the ‘nobody here but us ID-scientists’ mirage can be put away. And then you wouldn’t need to focus your message on those who won’t agree with you by force of will alone, not because of ‘the science’. “ID is scientific only to the extent that it separates itself from Christian apologetics, just as Darwinism is scientific only to the extent that it separates itself from an anti-teleological philosophy of nature.” – Timaeus It is not only the ‘anti-teleological philosophy of nature’ that compromises what you call ‘Darwinism’ or ‘the Darwinians’ as ‘non-scientific,’ but also (among other things) the inherent ‘conflict narrative’ that prioritizes Malthus-Darwin’s ‘struggle for life.’ Daniel Todes’ book (1989) reveals many non-scientific features of Darwin’s approach, not to mention in the ‘Darwinism’ and the ‘neo-Darwinism’ that followed in part from his works and in part from the imaginations and contortions of others. The perversion of Darwin’s ‘good botany/biology’ (you will admit, surely, Timaeus, that at least *some* of C.R. Darwin’s natural science contribution is still valid and correct, as of today, will you not?!) into bad psychology, sociology & ethology is an important conversation to have across the sciences, as a ‘meta-science’ discussion. If you are looking for someone to argue against who insists that ‘Darwinism is good science,’ then I’m not the right person; it is predominantly bad ideology. However, I see no problem whatsoever in uniting ‘ID’ fruitfully and necessarily with Christian theology (& thus also apologetics), in the sense that ‘implications’ of ID were at the forefront of the “Unlocking the Mystery” film and are quite obviously rife in ‘non-technical’ literature by ID advocates, like Dembski and Meyer. The problem is when one decides to limit them-self to ‘just science now’ and ‘just theology later;’ it is this (unimaginative) compartmentalisation of knowledge that confuses the discourse (red state/blue state, yet still united?). Newton did his science, Boyle did his science; many others have done and still do their ‘science’ while at the same time believing in God, creator of heaven and earth. The compartmentalization you are suggesting, Timaeus, may seem to be required to participate in the ‘natural science-only’ dialogue in USA. But the science-philosophy-religion discourse when globally-oriented can offer much more profound (powwow) understandings of human existence, beyond the merely technical advances made in any specialized (natural) ‘scientific’ field. “One can disagree with every social, political and theological view that has ever been advanced by any ID proponent, and still be an ardent supporter of intelligent design in nature.” – Timaeus It astonishes me that you are a philosophy and humanities scholar who has not studied ‘reflexivity’ because this fundamentally changes the ‘rules of the game’ and your argument thus fails in its unnecessary desire for pseudo-objectivity. Why are you asking us (21st c.) to still check our ‘faith’ at the door, Timaeus? In order just to do ‘natural science’ (especially when you are not yourself a natural scientist!)? Or because that’s what ‘secular’ journals require of your ‘natural science’ colleagues? Well, then why not publish an ID-breakthrough (by a natural scientist or engineer, if need be) that will actually change the (natural or applied) ‘scientific’ world in ASA’s journal PSCF, because they *will* surely publish *any* paper by an ID proponent if it indeed promises to impact the scientific world, and which *also* adds its spices of theology and philosophy – holistically – into the same mixture? Ted Davis has promised a fair shake at ASA’s journal in this very thread and I for one take his word for it that you or your ID colleagues would get a fair shake! Do you doubt Ted’s integrity on this, Timaeus? The ‘in nature’ clause you repeat and repeat comes with too many strings and ambiguities, Timaeus. I see what it disguises. Like I said above, tvs, radios, e-readers, etc. *all artefacts* of human-making are indisputably ‘designed.’ I just met a 1st year university (you call this a ‘fresh-man’) student who, when I asked what he is studying, answered, without blinking an eye or equivocating, ‘design’…of the ‘graphic design’ variety. The obvious analogy to human-made things is what makes ID so attractive to engineers and other applied scientists, programmers, etc. What is harder to swallow is how that analogy can be properly extended from the obvious (noosphere) to the not-so-obvious (biosphere)…as if we *should* therefore conclude Mind (or even aliens?!), not just human mind(s) are/were involved. “I am not aware of a single additional assumption that ID people have added to the set of suppositions that scientists already use.” – Timaeus Here’s the irony: without Rev. Thomas Malthus’ ‘non-natural scientific’ population argument, neither Darwin nor Wallace would have concluded/discovered their ‘science’ of ‘natural selection.’ Sure, they were looking at ‘natural’ history and seeing that a ‘young earth’ simply didn’t make sense of what they saw (long continuity). But again, since you’ve taken age of Earth tentatively off the table, we can’t have that argument and the IDM *necessarily* loses a plank of credibility. Check it. What we see here when we look closer is how ‘natural’ scientists have ‘stolen’ (softer: ‘appropriated’) a concept/percept from a political economist. Over the past century & a half ‘evolution’ has been injected with the powerful ‘steroid’ or aroma of ‘legitimacy,’ which is implied in the phrase “this *is* a scientific conclusion.” Thus, they have made ‘evolution (change-over-time) in the struggle for life by means of natural selection’ a feature of indisputably valuable ‘natural scientific’ knowledge for every boy and girl to learn at as early an age as possible. Here’s the rub: Only by kicking the argument back in the Political Economy will you be able to overturn this malevolent mischievousness; yet you insist on hiring a tiny fraction of humanitarian thinkers at DI compared to natural and applied scientists. Why? Because you’ve forgotten the ‘human’ in the ‘nature,’ just as ID leaders mourn the spiritual loss. The whole spectacle is baffling and people in USA are still feeding into it (with chants of ‘culture war’ winning the day) with their ‘evolutionary political economy’! What good is it if you ‘defeat’ the Darwinians in biology if at the same time you lose ethics, values, beliefs and faith to ‘evolutionism’? Please think through this carefully before denying it could be so. “Steve Fuller is very good at pointing out how “methodological naturalism” is used to fence certain ideas out of science, and that it is a construct which, at least in its current usage in the evolution debates, has a recent social and historical origin and falsifies the actual history of scientific thought.” - Timaeus Yes, Fuller does what you say. Fuller mocks the entire USAmerican discourse of MN vs MN. He thinks it is shallow & fruitless. It is not just about ‘using MN’ to ‘fence out’ certain ideas. It is the whole model of pitting MN vs. MN that is the problem! ID’s opponents grin like Cheshire cats when IDists bring up MN. Fuller is helping to take us beyond this primitive philosophy of science, initiated in its ‘modern’ form by evangelical Christian Paul de Vries (1983, Wheaton), who really was/is in no position to be an authority on this topic. In Steve Fuller’s most recent book – Humanity 2.0 (2011), he speaks of the US National Academy of Sciences & that the “rearguard appeal to ‘methodological naturalism’ as its official ideology continues this embarrassing modern tendency for (some) philosophers to promote the scientific beliefs they inherited as if they were timeless epistemological truths (e.g. Pennock 2010).” (176-7) ‘Naturalism’ is always-already an ideology; it is *never* just a ‘method’ for ‘doing science.’ When/if you finally train more science studies, sociology of science and philosophy of science trained professors, this recognition will become patently obvious. The questions “which science?” and “whose science?” blow the doors open on ‘naturalism’ as it is often viewed. But because ‘socialism’ is a black-listed term in USA, you’ve got little choice but to fall back into ‘naturalism’ discussions until the cows come home. “You should not expect a theory which argues for design in living things to comment on the best form of society or the best methods of early childhood education or the moral status of euthanasia.” – Timaeus I am not expecting ID to do something outside of the fields of competence of its main theorists; there are very few humanitarian thinkers or social scientists in the IDM and even those who are have apparently given up on defining an ‘ID theory of society.’ The folly in doing so should be obvious. I’ve read the list of DI fellows and taken note of their familiar fields. That is why even talk of ‘human nature’ that you give here is marginal lip service for what the IDM is actually proposing. DI simply has no money to fund humanitarian thinkers or social scientists, so the story goes. Indeed, ID may be one of the theories ‘least concerned’ with human beings that I’ve read in a long time! But then again, as you acknowledge, I am a social scientist, and so ID as it is framed at the moment should have little meaning or consequence for me. “nothing in ID *precludes* social scientific or humanistic investigations into the nature of man. Indeed, ID *clears the way* for such investigations by demolishing the Darwinian approach to man.” – Timaeus No kidding aside, I burst out laughing when I read this, Timaeus. Thanks be given to ID for ‘clearing the way’ for ‘enchanted’ social or humanistic investigations from the bottom-up?! A shocking reversal of priorities & betrayal of academic sovereignty this would require. ID as currently formulated is little ‘ally’ of social sciences. It is at best neutral toward social sciences, if not outright dismissive of them in virtue of its primary focus on natural-physical and applied sciences, to the exclusion of other relevant knowledge fields. To say ID is friendly to social sciences is disingenuous. You’re biting the hand that has fed you, Timaeus, philosopher, & humanities scholar. Why? Michael Behe’s comments in the introduction to Dembski’s 1999 book reveal this ironically condescending style; ID is *supposed to* have implications for “all humane studies,” he wrote. But does Behe have the faintest idea what he was suggesting with regard to social sciences and humanities or was he simply pontificating outside of his rights? Did he even consult with ‘humane’ (?) scientists before writing that ‘patently scientistic’ trickle-down remark? Do you now see how ‘economy’ is still very well positioned to deal a major blow to Darwinism from the ‘other’ side (like the Eastern front broke through first in WWII)? Lest you think I’m being impartial against ID, the same thing is what F.J. Ayala does when he writes about “The difference of being human.” He blatantly over-reaches his grasp, by biologizing humanity, or as Fuller would say, by ‘dehumanising’ us. He writes as if humanity is simply an after-thought to the ‘pressures’ of genes and (natural) environments. This is free-will empty anti-monotheism rhetoric that at least T. Dobzhansky did a better job in negotiating with his “Biology of Ultimate Concern.” Dobzhansky openly admitted he was a ‘creationist’ since he believed in God the Creator. But the Ukrainian nevertheless still committed transferability fraud by invoking ‘evolution’ into the cultural realm, as is still being done with impunity. Now Behe has done it backwards, in suggesting ‘design’ that is ‘intelligent’ somehow ‘belongs’ in ‘humanitarian fields,’ though he is quite obviously not trained to know one way or another the appropriate language(s) in those fields. He just presumes himself upon those fields, without apology or even recognition. I’m interested, not in ‘the nature of,’ but in ‘the character of’ man, Timaeus. You can study ‘intelligent design’ from within a natural-first perspective if you wish, but in so doing you’ll be joining with those you oppose about morality, values, beliefs and religion. I’ve got a better alternative to this bias and your words in this thread are validating my resolve to move the mission forward, as is already happening behind the scenes. Again, my e-mail address is open to you for correspondence in this regard, if you would choose confidentially to do so. Since you wrote about your “perspective as a philosopher and humanities scholar,” let me offer a new diagnosis: You’re arguing with the wrong ‘Darwinists,’ dear friend. A colleague of mine was just at a conference in Europe almost entirely brimming with ‘Darwinists.’ Very few of them are biologists, however. She actually presented a ‘non-evolutionary’ approach there, and my guess is that she was well received (haven’t heard the news yet). I helped with the language massage because English is not her native tongue. Yet your dialogue is still Anglo-centric. What this says, Timaeus, is that you are wrestling in a kind of ‘culture war’ that is a purely nationalistic contest unfairly rigged against you, where a ‘victory’ is not only out of sight, but indeed impossible on the field you have chosen to play on. Why play under these conditions? If I were to name 10 influential figures at that event, I’d guess you are familiar with no >1 of them, if any. And you thought you had the Darwinists running for the exits! This is laughable. For example, W.G. Runciman: “I am in no doubt that neo-Darwinism has a long life ahead of it.” (“Great Escapes: Intellectual errors and how they were overcome,” 2007) This has nothing to do with biology! Are you going to come up with an economic theory to counter Runciman-Malthus, while Darwin himself (neo-) is out of the picture? You’ve got the story backwards, Timaeus, with your trickle-up approach, that in turn (yes, it does) elevates ‘natural science’ out of due proportion in the Academy. This strategy will indeed come back to bite you, unless corrected, as you have bitten from the hand of the humanities by privileging natural sciences, like biology…and dehumanized us further in the process. Perhaps that’s enough academic-rapping here to provoke you (Lauryn Hill’s “Everything is Everything” partly inspired this reply – ‘you can’t match this’ rapper/academic – I do not write as for publications on a blog). If Dr. Carolyn Crocker (in California) is enough concerned about the ‘direction’ of the ASA and feels somehow ‘abused’ or marginalised by critiques of ‘young earth’ Christians who still think they are defending ‘good science’ as all proper martyrs should do, then she’s going to need something more like what BioLogos (uggh!) is offering than anything currently ‘in’ the IDM. That is, what ID needs is a theological wing – Christian, Muslim or Jewish theology front and centre (bah Berlinski’s pompous agnosticism!), which attempts to integrate ID-as-science, with the ‘implications’ of ID for theology and philosophy, in order to push back against the so-called ‘liberals’ who have (supposedly) taken over the ASA. If there is truly concern for the theological leanings inside the ASA, then only, as you said above, will studies of sacred scriptural hermeneutics, Ecclesia and Tradition enable an appropriate reply or response by Crocker and/or others. Otherwise, sobbing about the state of ‘evangelical’ Christian scientists at the ASA alone offers no fix. At least BioLogos has had the courage to bring theology to the forefront, regardless of the fact that their biology-centric, philosophical and ideological dilettantes have blown a gaping hole in their ship, from which many good people have fled. Indeed, BioLogos is more biology-centric than the IDM (while still unbelievably claiming to speak for ‘science’ [and faith] as a whole), but in my view, only slightly more so. What if Dembski’s father had not been a biologist?! Since my previous post here, Timaeus, I was in the company of a 2011 Nobel Prize winner. No, it wasn’t a ‘natural scientist.’ But who cares?!? An amazing person, whose work displays God’s ‘creation’ to/in the human heart of anyone who is honestly open to look and listen; no ‘design apologetic’ is needed or desired. I do not worship ‘natural science’ and wonder why the IDM is playing into the hands of natural scientists by its chosen prioritization of fields. Creation of nature, in nature, beyond nature – supra-natural divine meaning for/of humanity depends little on the activities or opinions of natural-physical scientists (quiet down in the back!), but more on philosophers, theologians and humanitarian thinkers. Thanks for your provocative thoughts, well-argued and courteous dialogue, Timaeus! Thanks also to Dr. Crocker for her report from the ASA meeting, with hope for development in her new organisation AITSE. Cheers, Gregory “Why? Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better.” – William (in film)Gregory
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Gregory: A final set of replies: 1. No, I'm not upset that the ASA is taking a stand against bad science. But what is bad science, and what is merely unorthodox science (i.e., possibly of some merit, but not yet accepted) need to be carefully distinguished. So if someone builds a museum in which human beings are depicted as living alongside dinosaurs, he is promoting bad science, because all the empirical evidence suggests that dinosaurs were extinct long before human beings came onto the scene; but if someone applies information theory to biology and discovers patterns of information strongly suggestive of design, the possible implications of such a discovery should not be rejected merely because certain ASA members are too timid to challenge the reigning Darwinian orthodoxy in biology. 2. I don't think bad science is any part of ID's big tent. ID's big tent is all about inferring design, and the means used to infer design (probability theory, information theory, engineering considerations, etc.) all come from well-established sciences. Some individuals who hold what you might consider unscientific beliefs (e.g., about a young earth) are ID theorists, but when they speak as ID theorists they must keep those beliefs out of their arguments and writing. It is no different than the situation in the late 19th century when some Victorian physicists (who certainly did "good science"), went in for spiritualism and attended seances in hopes of talking to their dear departed. The physics community did not cease to publish their scientific papers on electromagnetism simply because they privately engaged in some speculations about ectoplasm and so on. Similarly, there is no reason why ID proponents who accept an old earth should care that a few of their colleagues believe in a young earth, as long as that belief does not impinge upon the design theorizing. And I've seen no evidence that anyone's young earth beliefs have corrupted the quality of his writing on Kolmgorov information or on the genetic evidence for single versus multiple common ancestors or on the evidence that biological form is not determined entirely by DNA but appears to have laws of its own. If anyone can show me where a "young earth" assumption is built into any scientific argument by an ID proponent, I'm all ears. 3. When I spoke of what unites the ID people and what unites the Darwinians, I was speaking of what unites each group insofar as it genuinely addresses the science of nature, and does not intrude upon that science with ideological concerns. Obviously there is plenty of ideology in the popular debates over evolution, just as you say. There is plenty of theology on both sides as well. ID is scientific only to the extent that it separates itself from Christian apologetics, just as Darwinism is scientific only to the extent that it separates itself from an anti-teleological philosophy of nature. Thus, Behe's arguments based on irreducible complexity and the inordinate time needed for certain combinations of mutations are scientific arguments (whether valid or not is a separate question), not ideological ones; whereas arguments such as "God would not have been so cruel as not to let human beings manufacture their own Vitamin C, therefore human beings got here by an unguided natural process of evolution" -- the kind of argument used regularly both by atheist Darwinians and TEs -- are not scientific arguments, but arguments derived from theology. Thus, I reaffirm my stance about what unites ID people. ID people cannot be united by religion because they embrace different religions. They are united by their belief that nature reveals strong evidence for design. They may be right; they may be wrong; but that is what unites them. If certain ID proponents argue for certain political or historical conclusions -- that society is going down the drain because it has abandoned Christian principles, that the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism, etc. -- these other conclusions may well be true, or they may be false, but either way they have nothing to do with science and therefore nothing to do with intelligent design as an explanation of nature. They merely reflect the social and religious interests of certain ID proponents. One can disagree with every social, political and theological view that has ever been advanced by any ID proponent, and still be an ardent supporter of intelligent design in nature. 4. Regarding your remark about suppositions of all science, I agree with Max Weber that scientists necessarily make certain extra-scientific suppositions. They assume, for example, that nature works regularly. They assume that human sense-perception is reliable. They assume other things. However, I am not aware of a single additional assumption that ID people have added to the set of suppositions that scientists already use. If you can show me something that ID theorists assume that mainstream science does not assume, please do. 5. I certainly agree with you that people should read Max Weber, and that anyone interested in evolution and design should read some of the things written by Steve Fuller. I certainly agree with you that scientific discussions take place in an extra-scientific social context, and that this context sometimes intrudes upon science itself, not usually in the details, but in broader questions, such as: what counts as science? For example, it was just obvious to Aristotle that final causes belonged to science, whereas it was obvious to Bacon and Descartes that final causes should be kept out of science. Two different understandings of nature are presupposed in these judgments, and understandings of nature are in part shaped by culture. Steve Fuller is very good at pointing out how "methodological naturalism" is used to fence certain ideas out of science, and that it is a construct which, at least in its current usage in the evolution debates, has a recent social and historical origin and falsifies the actual history of scientific thought. 6. On your last point, I certainly affirm that human beings are more than what they appear to be to the biologist. You can see that from your perspective as a social scientist; I can see it from my perspective as a philosopher and humanities scholar. We have no disagreement: human beings cannot be reduced to their biology. But you misunderstand ID if you think that it places "biology first" in the analysis of human nature. ID discusses biology because it is a response to a biological theory -- the Darwinian. That is why it focuses on genes and cells and molecular mechanisms and biological information and so on. You should not expect a theory which argues for design in living things to comment on the best form of society or the best methods of early childhood education or the moral status of euthanasia. You should expect that it would limit itself in exactly the way that it does. But nothing in ID *precludes* social scientific or humanistic investigations into the nature of man. Indeed, ID *clears the way* for such investigations by demolishing the Darwinian approach to man, which is inherently reductionist because it explains (or attempts to explain) *everything* about man -- including his morality and religion -- in terms of his biological antecedents. ID is not social science, but it is the ally of social science -- at least, of all social science that is not based on reductionism and materialism. T.Timaeus
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Thanks for your compliment, Timaeus. I did spend considerable time on that post and attempted a respectful tone. With you it is not hard to express/achieve that; with others in the IDM (e.g. the ID-worldview holders & ‘everything is designed/nothing is not-designed’ people) is it difficult indeed! Unfortunately, there is no time to respond any more in-depth or point-by-point on my side either, so I must exit this thread also. With the sociological point granted, I think what Dr. Crocker experienced at ASA in terms of how they treat the ‘bad science’ (in your words) promoted by YECs (typically spoken in Protestant Christian circles as [hostility towards] ‘the sin, not the sinner’) is more understandable. Surely you are not upset, Timaeus, that ASA is ‘taking a stand’ against ‘bad science’! Accepting ‘bad science’ in ID’s ‘big tent,’ as you admit and as I too agree it is, for political or culture warring reasons, is imo an on-going mistake and one that should be corrected. But as you acknowledge, it is known (by Bruce Chapman, John West, Stephen Meyer, et al.) to indeed be a ‘risk’, and so nothing more need really be said on that theme. “What unites ID people is the argument that there is design in nature; what unites the Darwinians is the argument that there is no design in nature.” – Timaeus This is far too simple a dichotomy for a scholar of your calibre to maintain, Timaeus. First, these are ideological rather than scientific arguments, which is why the influence or place of ‘ideology’ in this discussion deserves more space than is currently given. 'Darwinism' is an ideology not a mere 'science', which is why BioLogos removed their definition of Darwinism from their blog; they called 'Darwinism' "the theory of evolution by natural selection," which is obviously misleading. On one hand, to suggest that “intelligent design is a purely scientific pursuit wholly separate from creation science,” is likewise quite obviously to misspeak. Purely?! Not only is ID a ‘pursuit,’ it is one that happens just as often ‘outside of science’ and/or that involves extra-scientific presuppositions (see above in this thread). However, mark my words, if I were an IDist, I would have no problem with that at all, since, as Max Weber noted (1919): “No science is absolutely free from presuppositions, and no science can prove its fundamental value to the man [sic] who rejects those presuppositions. Every theology, however, adds a few specific presuppositions for its work and thus for the justification of its existence. / For theology, these presuppositions as such lie beyond the limits of ‘science.’ They do not represent ‘knowledge,’ in the usual sense, but rather a ‘possession’.” Reading texts like this provide an alternative view of ‘intelligent design,’ ‘theistic evolutionism’ and ‘evolutionary creationism’ than what is currently available in the N. American discourse. They have led me ‘beyond ID’ toward something better, which I will gladly share with you and others, Timaeus, should you express genuine interest in the possibility. Second, the desire both to seek and ultimately (or trivially?) to find ‘design’ of some kind ‘in nature’ actually contradicts the IDMs cause of challenging ‘naturalism’ as ideology contaminating science. The non-natural features of ‘human design,’ not just ‘design in nature,’ are apparently easy to see…for those who already operate on the presumption that the world/universe/every hair on our heads, was ‘made by God the Creator.’ ‘By our presuppositions they shall know us.’ Since all ASA members accept or believe that “In the beginning God created,” they are already functioning on the same presuppositions when they ‘do science’ as (most of) you folks are. Sure, they do not suggest they can ‘scientifically’ _____ the Creator’s creation, while ID likewise says the ‘Designer/designer’ cannot be ‘scientifically detected;’ only the ‘designs’ which are undeniably modelled on human-made things (mousetrap, Easter Island statues, etc.) can be 'detected'. Indeed, Fuller’s contention that ‘intelligent design’ aptly means ‘divine technology’ is appropriate, when understood in the proper context & 'divine technology detective' would be a replacement for the word 'scientist'. Whereas people here at UD don’t seem to talk much about Steve Fuller or his support of ID, otoh, I’d much rather engage fruitfully with Fuller than un-fruitfully with Ruse or Coyne, who are basically beyond repair and humility. “In my view, there is no 'ID theology' and never can be. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I think that ID is simply too limited an insight to be the basis of a religious life.” – Timaeus Don’t worry, it doesn’t disappoint me. I agree with you. But I still wonder then why Dembski would title his book “Intelligent Design: the Bridge between Science and Theology” if there is no such thing as ID-Theology possible. What is a ‘bridge’ worth for travellers that doesn’t touch down on one side of the cliff and doesn't aim to? Impassable is what I would call it. Here StephenB’s point above is valid; why is a one-way street being presented, with (natural) science dictating (from below) to ethics, values, beliefs, faith and theology? The best answer to this is 'scientism' (not just the simple Anglo-American meaning of this ideology) which you of course would wisely seek to reject. If you folks are really still seeking ‘cultural renewal,’ as DI-CSC’s mission once indicated, then simply promoting ‘good science’ (even in the name of ID) is insufficient. You likewise need to be promoting ‘good theology’…in the name of _____ or ‘intelligent design’ (and its implications) too. Indeed, this is what Dr. Crocker is saying is needed at ASA; I’m suggesting it is needed at DI also. As it is, I have one kind of answer for this dilemma. Just today I re-submitted a peer-reviewed paper for publication; accepted with a few changes. It is anti-evolutionistic and focuses little on Darwin. Here’s a quote from it explaining why: “We are reminded of humanity in the tools of our creation, which reflect our primordial human (anthropic/Adamic) ‘nature’ or ‘character.’ A.R. Wallace took pains to identify ‘human selection’ (1890), the power of human choice, free will, to communicate, beyond mere ‘natural selection.’ This was his spiritual-humanitarian stand against Darwin’s and T.H. Huxley’s naturalistic agnosticism. To confess that ‘Adam’ was not a real person, as many of Darwin’s and Huxley’s followers have done, is tantamount nowadays to suggesting that humanity is in the process of being evolutionarily superseded by machines. To embrace Adam is to profess an anthropic understanding that no natural science is capable of superseding.” I wonder what Ted Davis would say to this, mired in geneticism as he seems still to be. There is indeed vast fertile ground, suitable for scholarly research and publications, that the IDM has yet to discover, in large part due to its choice of disciplinary priority; biology-first. If you’d like, Timaeus, I’ll send you a copy of something that indeed speaks of a post-evolutionistic way of ‘seeing/hearing/thinking,’ i.e. a ‘possession’ likened to ‘faith’, should you be willing to risk confidential private communication given below. Here at UD I would not risk it. Yours Respectfully, G. gregoryarago@yahoo.caGregory
October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Hello, Gregory. First, let me compliment you on the thoughtfulness and tone of your post above. Especially on the tone. From time to time on this thread and elsewhere, you have been somewhat scrappy in your debating style, but here you are in fine academic form, and it looks good on you. I won't respond to all of your points, but will address only two: (1) the argument that ID should dissociate itself from some of its supporters, in particular its young-earth creationist supporters; (2) the argument that ID would be better off if it had an explicit theology. (1) I agree with your sociological analysis, i.e., that ID's willingness to include within its big tent people who are considered by the intelligentsia to be sub-scientific carries with it a certain amount of risk. There is always the danger that ID will be accused of being "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" if it does not distinguish itself firmly from creationism. And while it has done that conceptually, it has not done that politically, in the way that you and others would prefer. On the other hand, there are other things to consider. (a) First of all, even those ID proponents who are not creationists, and are known by all honest critics not to be creationists, are savaged by the atheists, by the TEs, and by the the biological establishment. Behe is hammered more often and more insultingly than people like Cornelius Hunter or Paul Nelson. And he is treated thus, not primarily for failing to dissociate himself from other ID people, but for the views on Darwinism and design that he holds, as set forth in his books and articles. So accepting an old earth, and accepting macroevolution, including the evolution of the human form, does not protect one from the hatred of the anti-ID people. Similarly, Sternberg, another Catholic who appears to accept macroevolution and to dispute only the Darwinian mechanism, is denounced whenever his name is brought up, by atheists and TEs alike. So again it appears that association with young-earth people is not the decisive element in the rejection of ID and is not the cause of its vilification. The cause of its vilification is that it questions the scientific consensus re Darwinian mechanisms, and that it introduces the notion of design into scientific discussion. If every single ID person were a Catholic macroevolutionist such as Behe, the reaction of the biological community, of the New Atheists, and of the TE community would be much the same as it is now. There would be fewer "target areas" on ID's body (no chance of scoring points regarding the age of the earth or alleged theocratic conspiracies of right-wing Protestants), but the remaining target areas would be riddled with bullets all the same. The only way that ID can avoid such violent opposition is to surrender its basic position and say: "Darwinian science is really great, and we were impudent and insubordinate to criticize it, and we were fools to think that there might be detectable design in nature or even that design could ever be talked about in science." The opponents of ID will accept no less than total surrender. Under such circumstances, there is no sensible reason why the ID macroevolutionists should severe their ties with the ID creationists. It is much easier for their foes to annihilate each of them if they stand alone than if they join forces to defend each other. And there is no doubt that their foes do want to annihilate each of them. (b) Second, while I think that literalism/inerrantism has often produced bad science, I do not see those ID proponents who hold to literalism/inerrantism arguing for science based on that literalism/inerrantism when they argue for ID or criticize Darwinian biology. For example, I am told that Paul Nelson is a young earth creationist, but I have never seen him discuss young earth creationism here on UD or anywhere else. I have read his articles on important scientists and science writers; I have read his articles on technical biological matters, regarding flaws in Darwinian theory and so on. I haven't seen any arguments from him that the earth is young, that the geologists are wrong about the age of the earth, that evolution can't have happened because the earth was created in six literal days, etc. As far as I can tell, whatever he believes privately about the Bible as history, when he is operating publically as a Darwin critic and ID supporter, he bases his arguments on empirically accepted science regarding cells, genes, evolutionary tree data, etc. In light of this, let's bring to full light the structure of the argument you are making, and test it for logical soundness. Your implied argument (and whether you are speaking for yourself or only representing the view of ID critics is immaterial here) is essentially this: 1. Paul Nelson does not accept the current scientific consensus on the age of the earth. 2. Therefore, Paul Nelson is an incompetent scientist. 3. Therefore, anything Paul Nelson says about any scientific topic whatsoever, even if what he says does not in any way depend on his opinion of a young earth, can be discounted. 4. Therefore, his genetic arguments against LUCA (a single universal common ancestor), even though they have nothing at all to do with the age of the earth, can be dismissed as unscientific without examination. But all the steps from 2 to 4 amount to ad hominem argumentation. Why should ID people dignify ad hominem arguments by jettisoning intelligent people like Paul Nelson? The opponents of ID have no right to employ such arguments in the first place. You know, Gregory, there are people who say that anyone who believes in the Resurrection, or other miracles, cannot possibly be a truly competent scientist. Do you remember Coyne's opposition to Collins's appointment to the NIH? If we are going to say to Paul Nelson, you can't be taken seriously as a scientist because you believe literally in the genealogies of Genesis, why can't we say to Collins and other Christian scientists, you can't be taken seriously as a scientist because you believe that people can get up from the dead, or turn water into wine, or walk on water? After all, Collins and other Christian scientists believe in the Gospel miracles precisely because "the Bible says so" -- the same argument that literalists use to defend the Genesis genealogies. So is the argument that any scientist who believes in miracles because the Bible vouches for it must be sub-intellectual and sub-scientific? And that other scientists should distance themselves from such colleagues? In that case, all the Christian science faculty would have to be expelled from the universities. Sure, from a sociological point of view, denying an old earth seems anti-scientific to most Americans. But 50 years from now, affirming the Resurrection or water into wine may seem anti-scientific to most Americans. If that turns out to be the case, should the ID supporters of the future distance themselves from those who believe in the Resurrection as well? And from all the other miracles? Then ID in the future will be restricted to Deists and agnostics. My view is that, as long as Collins's belief in the Gospel miracles doesn't affect the way he does science, the scientific community has no reason for concern, and so I think that Coyne's objections to Collins's appointment were petty and partisan. But the same applies to the YEC people within the ID movement. As long as none of their scientific arguments against Darwin or for ID are grounded in their particular views of the Bible, I don't think those views are a fair subject for discussion. I am sure you are correct that from a sociological point of view their views are bound to be discussed, and targeted; but it does not follow that it is legitimate for anyone to do so. Ad hominem arguments remain illegitimate no matter how popular and politically successful they are. The moment that Paul Nelson makes his scientific arguments depend on his particular understanding of the Bible is the moment that I will repudiate him. Until then, I have no problem with his involvement in the ID movement, and I don't think any honest scientist should, either. (2) You would like to see an ID theology. I understand your desire. But here is the problem. Organizations like the ASA and Biologos are clearly Protestant in their historical roots and religious culture, even if they do not formally demand Protestantism as a condition of membership. They therefore are already dedicated to a particular interpretation of Christianity which gives them at least the possibility of some kind of theological unity. But let's look at the ID movement. Behe, Chapman, Richards, Sternberg, O'Leary, StephenB, Vincent Torley -- lots of Catholics there. Meyer, Dembski, Luskin, Hunter, Dodgen, bornagain77, probably most of the posters here and probably most of the donors to Discovery -- lots of Protestants. And Berlinski -- an agnostic. And Klinghoffer -- a practising Jew. And Denton -- apparently a Deist. And Wells -- from the Unification church. There are also Eastern Orthodox ID supporters, and Muslim ID supporters. What theology could unify all of those people? What would the doctrines of such an ID "Church" be? I can't imagine. The adherents of such a Church couldn't even agree on theism, let alone on Jesus Christ, and even those who could agree on Jesus Christ would split over whether authority came from Scripture alone or from Tradition as well. I don't think you can make a Church or a theology for ID, any more than you could make a Church or a theology for everyone who believes in Darwinian evolution. What sort of "theology of Darwinian mechanisms" could equally accommodate Catholic Ken Miller, evangelical Protestant Francis Collins, vaguely pantheistic Francisco Ayala, agnostic Michael Ruse, and hardnosed atheist Richard Dawkins? Ruse and Dawkins would walk out the church door the moment Collins pulled out his guitar. What unites ID people is the argument that there is design in nature; what unites the Darwinians is the argument that there is no design in nature. This difference cannot be translated into any particular theology, for either camp. There will always be many different pro-design theologies, and many different anti-design theologies (or anti-theologies, if you will). The theology of Platonism differs from the theology of Ken Ham, and the calm atheism of the Epicureans differs from the angry, fist-shaking atheism of Richard Dawkins. In my view, there is no "ID theology" and never can be. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I think that ID is simply too limited an insight to be the basis of a religious life. I'm going to exit this thread now. If you reply, I will read what you say, but I don't have anything more that I want to add. I must return to other work. Thanks for the exchange. T.Timaeus
October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
--Gregory: "See for example, StephenB’s on-going self-contradiction: Sorry, there are no contradictions in my statements. Any perceived conflict exists only in your dubious orientation to the subject. Gregroy quoting me: ...“when I write about the ID world view, I am referring to the belief or attitude that biological design is real, that it is detectable, and that its effects can be measured.” … “ID’s methodology that begins the investigation by observing data and following the evidence wherever it leads” – StephenB Correct. An ID world view, as I define it, is a belief in the validity of the ID approach. It is not a methodology which begins with an analysis of the data. One of the reasons our language contains multiple words is so that we can make distinctions. ---Before StephenB starts, he has already concluded the reality of ‘biological design.’ No, I have not. You asked me to define what I meant when I used the word, "world view." You said nothing about methodology. I introduced that word so that you would, one hopes, come to understand the difference. ID methdology does not begin with an assumption, it begins with an observation. It is a laudible habit to follow the trajectory of your own questions. ---Gregory: "The method of looking at evidence and ‘measuring’ it is presupposed and does not matter at this point." How, in the name of sense, does one presuppose the conclusion by first examining functionally specified complex patterns in nature and then drawing formal (ID science) or informal (intuition) inferences from that observation. If you are going to assume a cricital tone on a given subject, you have a moral obligation to learn something about it. ---"Following the evidence where it leads is a methodology; starting with ‘intelligent design’ *and then* following the evidence where it leads is not a methodology," You are tripping over your own words. It is possible to detect design in nature informally, that is, to recognize its existence independently of any scientific analysis or measurement. Hence, most rational people recognize the design inherent in the structure of a bird's wing. On the other hand, one can, without presuming the existence of design, draw an inference to design by using ID methodologies. If only you and yours were as open to scrutiny and willing to define your own positions as some of us are, things would go a lot smoother. “It looks like design” (bird’s wing) is not a scienfitic statement." No kidding. Do you labor under the illusion that every rational argument is scientific in nature.StephenB
October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Timaeus, No worries about missing the initial questions. I’ve enjoyed this thread generally and appreciate that you took the time to address them. If more discussions by people in the ID camp would occur like this, there would be much more ground for collaboration and common projects with non-IDists. Now I must repay the apology as recent days have not allowed me to respond to your thorough rejoinder. This long response will address several comments, by you and others in this thread. First, I’m glad to hear that Dr. Crocker was treated well at ASA – excellent interpersonal relationships – all things considered. If ASA members are not ‘behaving’ as Christians, this would go against their mission. It seems to me that Ted Davis has dispelled one rumour – the title of this thread can be answered easily: No, ASA has not forgotten their stated identity as a home for scientists and scholars who are Christians. The theological content of ASA is visible openly; this distinguishes it from the IDM and the DI. To me the main point is this: most of ASA’s members have decided to ‘take a stand’ against ‘young earth’ views, which YECs insist is not ideology, but rather ‘good science.’ YECs reject the science of a vast majority of geologists, cosmologists, biologists and others, including their Christian brothers and sisters in those fields. ASA has decided that it cannot any longer ignore the ‘evidence’ that comprehensively points to an ‘old’ earth. The IDM otoh lowers its credibility because it does *not* ‘take a stand’ on the ‘science’ involved in ‘age of Earth,’ when it quite easily could do so. One can argue that it doesn’t have to, but that misses the sociological point about how the IDM is perceived because of its welcome association with (& funding from) YECs. If the sociological point isn't important to you, at least it should be understood for what it is. “As scientists, ASA members have to come to some agreement on what counts as acceptable science and what does not. Obviously they have come to the conclusion that a flat earth is not good science. Obviously they have come to the conclusion that a young earth is not good science. They have not yet come to a conclusion whether or not ID is good science; that debate is still going on.” – Timaeus Yes, this seems to me an accurate description of the current situation. Some in the ASA may say ID is ‘bad science,’ but they would be speaking prematurely imho, since ‘pattern recognition’ qualifies ‘design detection’ as a kind of ‘science,’ even if not within the (natural-physical) fields ID currently highlights. Does the Discovery Institute not see or not care that its legitimacy as an institution concerned with ‘truth in science’ and 'academic freedom' becomes dubious simply by its ongoing affiliation with people who accept a ‘young earth’ as if it were ‘good science’? “The bad science of creationists follows from their literalist hermeneutic.” – Timaeus Why then allow this ‘bad science’ into the big tent of the IDM? Why not just cut it off at the door/tent opening, which DI could easily do? Only ‘good science’ and not ‘bad science’ should be welcomed by the DI & the IDM! Whatever the reason for YECs’ ‘bad science,’ it does not change the fact that if the IDM won’t officially address ‘age of Earth’ then it will be perceived that the DI does so for duplicitous reasons, e.g. to maintain funding channels with YECs or to perpetuate a ‘culture war,’ etc. I've met DI leaders and do not question their integrity generally speaking! Why not then solve the dilemma by facing this problem? By having the courage to take a formal stand as an professional institute, the DI would enhance its appearance as an organization of scientists, scholars and people to actually treat science seriously, not just cherry picking topics as they see fit. (I’m not saying the DI *must* express position on *all* branches of science, but ‘age of earth’ is obviously quite important in the ‘controversy’ over which evolutionary theories to teach and which to discard as ideological.) “I think that you and others want to see ID adopt a sort of religious and political Constitution, which could then be used to keep certain people out, and I have a pretty good idea which people you would like to see kept out. But it isn’t going to happen. The ID people are content with the alliance that they have forged, even if the rest of the world finds it odd or incomprehensible.” - Timaeus Just keep YECs out of the IDM, that’s all I’m asking for; honour them as ‘well-intentioned’ Christians who are obviously backwards scientifically. Pat them on the head and tell them to go 'Reform' their views of/in science - tell them not to be scared that the earth revolves around the Sun! My point has nothing at all to do with a ‘religious and political Constitution,’ so I don’t know what you’re suggesting there. Just keep what in your own words is ‘bad science’ out of the ‘big tent,’ Timaeus. What is unreasonable about that request? The tent might grow in some ways, while it shrinks in others. Care to risk it? It isn’t about Behe or Dembski or Meyer ‘appeasing’ people; it is about the DI appeasing ‘bad science’ by not taking a principled stand about the age of the earth. Your argument is noted, Timaues, but seems to me to be full of holes. You’re inviting contradiction and mutually exclusive views into your ‘big tent’ – this is not a recipe for welcome reception by the scientific community or by Christians who seek a healthy, fruit-producing balance between science, ideology and religion. Wrt ‘deference to experts,’ Robert Sheldon, I don’t see the big deal, unless one is under-educated and tries to speak down to those who are educated. Have you heard of the notion of ‘ProtScience’ put forward by Steve Fuller (2010), one of the few social scientists friendly to ID? If not, you really should check it out; just as the printing press led to the Protestant Reformation and reading scripture for oneself instead of bowing to Church hermeneutics, so the internet is leading people to ‘become their own scientist’ even if they are hardly in a position to be a credible interpreter of evidence, based on internet blogging experience. ASA is right to speak strongly against YEC and its ProtScience. Amen! However, they are simply reflecting their biases against ID when they say it is anti-science when it quite obviously supports (and oftentimes but not always promotes) ‘good science.' Indeed, the reason why many theists don’t accept ‘intelligent design’ is because it is proposed as a ‘science-only’ theory, not as a meta-science (R. Collins) or as a worldview, which is what one person in this thread called it. Do you have any guess at just how many people who call themselves IDists, actually think of ‘intelligent design’ as a worldview, not just as a science? It’s an honest question; I have no idea. See for example, StephenB’s on-going self-contradiction: “when I write about the ID world view, I am referring to the belief or attitude that biological design is real, that it is detectable, and that its effects can be measured.” … “ID’s methodology that begins the investigation by observing data and following the evidence wherever it leads” – StephenB Before StephenB starts, he has already concluded the reality of ‘biological design.’ The method of looking at evidence and 'measuring' it is presupposed and does not matter at this point. Following the evidence where it leads is a methodology; starting with ‘intelligent design’ *and then* following the evidence where it leads is not a methodology, it is an ideology. "It looks like design" (bird's wing) is not a scienfitic statement. But again, this thread is not really about ID, it is about Dr. Crocker’s experience at ASA. I accept that her qualifications do not prepare her to challenge biblical hermeneutics in ASA; neither do mine. It does seem to me also largely a sociological phenomenon, rather than only a theological one, which she is noting (plus, people keep throwing the labels ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ involving religious politics in USA). The strong reaction of ASA towards YECs to me is understandable; they are rejecting the ‘bad science’ of YECs, which is laudable. The strong reaction of some people in ASA, and basically all affiliated with BioLogos, against ID-as-science makes much less sense, given the relative newness of information theories, and the awareness that many in the IDM are also ‘evangelical Christians’ just like them. I still wonder why ID is not more versed in cybernetics and systems approaches, given that both highlight information and both use the language of ‘design.’ It seems to me this is because of the ideology of people in the IDM, rather than because of the science of cybernetics or systems approaches. But perhaps that can just be left as grist for the mill on another thread. It is not my intention to frequent this place. Partly due to the negative stigma brought on by triumphalism, such as Dembski’s ‘waterloo’ moment. That Crocker is interested in making a change without throwing mud at ASA affords her more credibility than another writer in particular working on behalf of the IDM. Yes, Timaeus, I’d agree that Darrel Falk does not appear to ‘stay current’ and that Paul Nelson probably understands current evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories in biology better than Falk does. Does it not make you wonder then, Timaeus, how Nelson could still allow ideology to trump science wrt age of earth?! Indeed, if a guy like Nelson were to go through a public ‘conversion’ to ‘old’ earth this would speak volumes for ID’s mission. It speaks badly about the IDM with clear examples of people who accept ID and who yet at certain times allow ideology to dominate their ‘science’. I couldn’t say who is more of an embarrassment to ‘good science:’ Falk or Nelson. This is a point that the IDM should be making much more openly and transparently than they have thus far. Yes, Falk is outdated, out of touch and his BioLogos view is difficult to defend with a straight face (in the absence of F. Collins even more so). But Nelson is an embarrassment to the IDM – when it comes to his ‘bad science’ – and that is the crucial point re: Crocker’s experience at ASA. Not challenging the ‘bad science’ of YECs is the appeasement that needs to end. “I think that you and others are making far too much of the creationist-ID connection.” – Timaeus The thing is, there shouldn’t need be *any* connection possible to make between ‘creationism’ and ID. If the DI takes a stand, this would solve a bunch of problems (even if it may lead to funding cuts & other such consequences). The DI is inviting the connections with the ‘big tent’ approach by turning its head the other way wrt YECs; I and others are not making this stuff up. If ‘intelligent design’ is trying to re-define science, while at the same time it allows ‘bad science’ to exist within that ‘new science’ neighbourhood, it should be understood that scathing remarks from people inside the ASA will be forthcoming. Ted is a classy guy and he likely won’t insult you to your face; much worse things will be said and done by non-Christians and atheists, who are likewise simply defending the territory of science from ideology. The situation is exacerbated by the DI’s unwillingness to ‘come clean’ about its non-YEC foundation. Otoh, if the IDM *would* put forward an ID-Theology, then it would at the same time offer an opportunity to do what some people in this thread have asked for: give theologians and regular people who are theists an opportunity to ‘push back against science’ when it makes exaggerations and forays outside of its boundaries into philosophy, socio-cultural thought and worldview. Indeed, it would be a win-win for the IDM; build an ID-Theology and take a stand publically against YEC ideology. This would gain credibility for the IDM and allow Dr. Crocker a (potentially legitimate) leg to stand on next time she goes to an ASA meeting. So then, why not put forward an ID-Theology? “intelligent design is a purely scientific pursuit wholly separate from creation science” – Evolution News and Views (Oct. 21, 2011) Quite obviously, this is too strong a statement to keep repeating, given what has been said above, by as competent a defender of ‘intelligent design’ as Timaeus.Gregory
October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
I suppose that I am destined to be misunderstood when I use technical terms like “predominant culture” in a discussion such as the one we just had. This must be the case since so many here continue to instruct me on the ASA's demographics, mission statement, and written policies. An organization’s culture is a pattern of shared assumptions, a collection of values and norms that determine the way people interact with and react to each other. It defines acceptable and unacceptable behavior and may or may not reflect the organization’s stated mission and written policies. Quite often it does not. Even in the context of diverse world views, every organization forms its own culture naturally and it is always changing. Again, it will not suffice to say that I should not judge the "whole" organization based on elements within in, as if no such thing as an undercurrent could exist. Based on what I have read, the ASA's culture has changed and is now subtely taking on an anti-ID flavor. Yes, of course I could be wrong. On the other hand, it appears that the ASA's leadership and defenders feel no need to reflect soberly on the mattet and that critics could not possibility be on to something, which is a good reason to suspect that they may be wrong.StephenB
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_QAoanXntw The link didn't copy.Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
No, there aren't "two Elizabeths" :) But I am a trained scientist, and also a trained musician. Both require rigor, and both require imagination. And both require empathy. Gil will probably agree :) As for my soul - I was certainly not a bloodless believer, although I did tend to go for Aquinas rather than happy clappy stuff. I'm not a pianist - I play the viol, and was steeped for many years in 16th and 17th century music, including the amazing liturgical music of that era. And you can't be bloodless about anything, certainly not religion, while playing Es ist Vollbracht :)Elizabeth Liddle
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Elizabeth: Thank you for this reply. I don't disagree with everything that you say, but the way in which you talk about religion in terms of "evidence" and "rigor" and so on seems to me to be rather bloodless. It seems to me that there are two Elizabeths: Elizabeth the hard-minded, no-nonsense scientist, who doesn't believe in anything unless she can put salt on its tail, and Elizabeth the musician, who plays wonderful classical music with (I presume) great feeling. I would suggest to you that if you are ever going to understand the nature of religion (and the nature of theology can't really be grasped without understanding the nature of religion), that you pay greater attention to that part of your soul that houses Elizabeth the musician, and less to that part of your soul that houses Elizabeth the rigorous methodologist of science. If you play the piano, try your hand sometime at the Kelberine arrangement of "Komm, Susser Tod." I think the Passion is better expressed there than in a thousand theological treatises. I think that such works get one inside the Christian mind and heart, and more generally, inside the religious mind and heart, better than any of the external modes of investigation that you seem to prefer. I think that in this matter you have been too influenced by a sort of empiricist or positivist notion of religion. Unfortunately this notion of religion undergirds the whole "religion/science" and "creation/evolution" cultural battles, as it is the notion of religion shared by most of the combatants from Richard Dawkins to Ken Ham. It is certainly not my notion of religion. Of course, as my name indicates, my philosophical master is not Bacon or Descartes or Hume or Kant or any of the other moderns whose notions of reason and truth have led to this false misconception of the divine and how we can know it. Best wishes, T.Timaeus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
StephenB: Thanks for your clear and careful response. I don't want to talk too much about personal frictions here, but I do want to address what you said about being insulted. I haven't read carefully what Gregory said to you, so I can't comment on that; you will have to take it up with Gregory. Regarding Ted, however, I must have missed the insult. I think Ted spoke to you firmly, but I don't think he meant to belittle you. I am guessing that you are referring to his remark that you are not a member of the ASA, and his suggestion that this makes your observations less than authoritative. Let me comment on that. Ted has spent years of his life involved in the ASA. He's held the highest executive office and has been involved with it in almost every imaginable way. He knows a large proportion of the members personally, and knows the internal politics of the various camps very well. He knows a vast amount about the history of the organization, and he knows a lot of stuff that cannot be published because it was told to him in confidence. I think that what Ted is trying to say to you and to all of us here is that when we make generalizations about the ASA, he is not going to let them pass unless they match his own deep and broad experience of the organization. He knows that most of us here are not members and never have been, and that we see it only from the outside, and only in relation to isolated issues that pop up. So he wants to make sure that we see the bigger picture, not just a few isolated and dramatic conflicts that have come to our attention. I think this is a legitimate conversational goal for someone in his position. So if you felt he was saying: "You don't know what you are talking about" in a harsh way, I think you have to understand that as: "What you have seen is only the tip of the iceberg, and you should be careful not to judge the whole organization by the little bit of it that you have seen." That said, I agree with you that it is possible that Ted has underestimated the number of slights that ID people have received from ASA members who champion TE. Even Ted can't be everywhere, and he hasn't been at all the talks and hasn't been witness to all the conversations that Caroline and others are talking about. He may not realize how frequent and pronounced the condescension of some individuals toward ID people is. I am sure that he knows that such attitudes exist -- he's a very wide-awake person who knows the score. But he may not have fully gauged the acceleration of these attitudes over the past two or three years. I have to agree with Ted about this, however. In any democratic organization, the majority has power, if it chooses to exert it; but if it fails to exert it, the organization will be run by a party or clique. This is a fact of human nature. The politically more involved will rule over the politically less involved. It happens in political parties, in university faculties, etc. Now I am told that TEs make up only 1/3 of the membership of the ASA. That means they are in a minority. So how can they push the others (ID, OEC, uncommitted, etc.) around, unless the others are passive? The others have to become more active, as I've said before, more active on the intellectual side (writing papers for conferences and articles for the journal), and more active on the political side (making sure they have representation on every panel, committee and governing body of the organization). OK, enough on that point. Now to your other points. I agree with you about Christian Darwinism. You and I have both posted comments here in the past about the difficulties of putting the two things together, and we are on the same page. But I understand why Ted did not want to take that up. First of all, the compatibility of chance and providence etc. are huge topics worthy of a thread in themselves, and would take the discussion away from the main subject, i.e., the ASA. Second, Ted has frequently discussed these metaphysical topics before, here on UD in responses on various threads, and on the old ASA discussion list (now defunct), and he has discussed them at great length. I don't think he is avoiding the topic; I think he just doesn't want to address it in this context. I think what Ted was trying to get you to see is that from the TE point of view, it is not as simple as "either science trumps the Bible, or the Bible trumps science." From the TE point of view -- and keep in mind that the TEs vary from very liberal Christians to much more conservative ones, so generalizations can be misleading -- it is not science versus the Bible; it is "Must we interpret the Bible in such a way that it necessarily clashes with science, or are there other ways of reading it?" Remember that the TEs are in constant battle against the YECs who tend to interpret the whole Bible very literally, and in particular interpret Genesis very literally. Probably 90% of the Bible-science conflict in the USA comes from YEC or YEC-related quarters. If you don't have to take the days in Genesis literally, if you don't have to take the Flood story as an entirely accurate news report, if you don't have to accept the genealogies in Genesis as complete and accurate lists of all the generations back to Adam, then most of the Bible/science conflicts evaporate. Not all of them, but most of them. So Biblical interpretation is crucial for TEs. If the Genesis is read one way, then evolution cannot have happened, because the Word of God says the earth isn't old enough. (This is Todd Wood's view.) But if Genesis is read in other ways, evolution is possible. (I'm not here talking about whether evolution is scientifically plausible; I'm discussing only whether or not Genesis, and more generally, Christian theology, can make room for evolution.) Now I have no problem with exploring different ways of reading Genesis, including ways which allow the earth to be old enough for evolution to have happened. And I'm not sure that you have any such problem, either. I think you have granted that evolution is compatible with Catholic thought and with ID, if it is construed in a certain non-Darwinian way. So I don't think that you and Ted are really disagreeing on that point. However, there may be some points of disagreement between the Bible and science that don't depend on an extreme literalist perspective, and I think this is what you are getting at when you talk about Adam and Eve and the Fall. I think you are saying that this must be a historical event, and that the Catholic Church vouches for it as such. I think you are saying that the story of Noah's ark and of seven days of creation and of the age Methusaleh are not central to Christian theology in the way that a historical Adam and Eve and the Fall are. I think you are saying that the literalness of Genesis is negotiable on some things, but not on other things. Do I understand you correctly? If this is your position, then here is where you are going to clash with most of the TEs on the ASA. All of the TEs who are geneticists appear to be of the view that there cannot have been a first human couple, but only an original hominid population of 10,000 or more. So *part* of the Adam/Eve story cannot be literally true. They therefore want to insist that the "first parents" part of the story cannot be taken literally, and that Genesis has to be read loosely on that point. However, many of them believe in a historical Adam and Eve as the first hominid couple to be truly human, to possess the image of God. You will find this view asserted in various places, in the ASA journal, on Biologos, etc. I do not know if this view is compatible with current Catholic official statements, but it is becoming increasingly common among Protestant TEs. In their view, it allows them to hang on to what is essential in Paul's Adam/Christ parallel. So they see themselves as being true to traditional Pauline Christianity, in the main, and they think that dropping the "first biological parents" part does not damage the core assertions of the faith. There is a more radical position among the ASA membership, held by, I would think, a small minority of TEs. This would be the position of Denis Lamoureux, who says that the whole Garden story is intended mythically. There is no need to postulate a real Adam and Eve, he says. There never were any such persons. The point of the story is to show the estrangement of God from man in a pictorial way. Now you may ask: how does he square that with the statements of Paul? I answer: I don't know; you will have to ask Lamoureux. But quite a debate has raged. A few months ago, I saw Lamoureux savage Biologos on this issue, claiming that the moderate position I described above (federal headship rather than biological parentage) was lousy Biblical theology and that the Biologos people who held to it didn't know what they were talking about. He became quite heated, and said some very sharp and accusatory things, and within an hour or so most of his comments were taken down by the moderator. I, however, happened to be reading at the time, and so did many others. In the aftermath, Biologos explained that it was trying to make room for a wide variety of positions, including the position that Adam and Eve were real people whose Fall necessitated the coming of Christ. It allowed Lamoureux's position as possible, but did not accept it as proved. So on that point, Biologos was more conservative than one of its TE contributors. Even Biologos is hesitant to throw out Adam and Eve altogether, just to harmonize with science. We have to give the Devil his due, and score one point for Biologos there. On the other hand, if you insist that Adam and Eve must be literally the first parents of all human beings who have ever existed, then the position of Biologos is liberal, because that is the one position that it will *not* accept. For them, the population genetics argument is unassailable, and as certain as Newton's Laws or the periodic table or the boiling point of water at sea level, and so Genesis *must* be reinterpreted on that point. So Biologos can defend a form of the doctrine of the Fall, but not the full, traditional doctrine. Now, not every TE needs to agree with Biologos on this. A TE might doubt that the population genetics argument is compelling. I don't know any TEs who have openly said so, but there may be some. Are there any such in the ASA? I don't know. But even if every TE in the ASA does agree with Biologos, I come back to the point that the TEs are a minority within the ASA and that this is not the official ASA position. So we have to be careful not to identify the position of the ASA with the position of Biologos, even if many prominent ASA members are involved with Biologos. I am glad to hear that I misinterpreted your remarks about the Bible, and that you still hold to a traditional Catholic understanding, i.e., that Christianity is more than simply the Bible, but requires an interpretive tradition. Thanks for clarifying. I think I have to leave this thread now. Like Ted Davis, I have run out of time. But I thank Caroline for starting this conversation. I hope that in future days she and Ted and other sensible people on both sides of the TE/ID divide will be able to work together constructively, so that the ASA does not fall apart due to internecine warfare between the various camps regarding origins. T.Timaeus
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Wow! This thread is everything I wanted to say and know about ASA and more. Thank you all for your time and effort to write these exchanges. I'm going to have to print them out and read them slowly. Two very quick comments. a) There is way too much deference to specialists. I admit that the problems in hermeneutics are severe--yet that has not stopped anyone on this list from discussing "what the Bible says". Likewise I admit that philosophy of science, like metaphysics and epistemology is a huge field that cannot possibly be mastered by any one human being--yet that has not stopped anyone on this exchange from talking about science. So why all the deference to experts? Or to put it another way, do you need to be an expert in General Relativity to know that gravity works on dropped tumblers? There needs to be a "Common Sense" approach that can be applied to all these differing areas and which is relatively free of contradictions. b) Which brings me to my second point. The place where people put their inevitable contradictions is generally at the spot where they know the least. For some, it is hermeneutics--how we know what the words in the Bible mean. For others this is philosophy--how we know reality, or how we know that something is true. For others this is science--what it means for a theory to have support, what makes a theory a good theory. (Illustrative anecdote. Liquid crystal displays--flat panel TV's--used to cost thousands of dollars, because it was so difficult to make a defect-free display. Defects occur because the silicon crystals used to make the Si-on-glass transistors of the display, have incompatible crystal boundaries, so there are literally millions of such boundaries in a flat panel. A transistor on a defect would fail, a pixel would go black, and black pixels would mar the screen. If only 0.01% of the pixels went bad, a 1000 x 1000 display would still have 100 of them. Then my brother-in-law invented a way to concentrate the incompatible boundaries in certain places--say, the border--where they didn't get in the way. Bingo--cheap displays, and he gets royalty checks every month. Moral: put your contradictions someplace they won't be seen.) So when a person who has all his contradictions located, say, in science, argues with a man who has all his contradictions located in hermeneutics--they don't understand each other. In some sense, they can't, because then somebody would have resolved his contradictions and would have had to change his views. ---------------- My hope, and personal goal, is to hold to my contradictions lightly, ready to move them around if I can find a better spot for them. I was brought up in a "fundamentalist" home, and started with my contradictions in science. After high school, I moved them to hermeneutics. Then after some years in seminary have moved them to linguistics (or philosophy of language). So far this has been a quite unnoticeable spot, and I humbly suggest, the visible parts of my science and faith integration don't have any big black pixels in them. So the point of experts should be to detach the black pixels of contradictions from prejudice and allow them to be shifted to less noticeable places. When the ASA functioned in this fashion, it was a pleasure to attend. But if it functions as a gatekeeper of the orthodoxy, putting bandaids over the black pixels of its contradictory integration, then it not only will become less pleasurable to attend, it will also become irrelevant.Robert Sheldon
October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
"a data first process & at the same time a "world view." No, a data first process, by my description, is ID's methodology that begins the investigation by observing data and following the evidence wherever it leads, as opposed to the Creationist methodology, which begins with a presupposion of Biblical teaching and seeks to harmonize that data with that presupposition. Thank you for the question.StephenB
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Thank you for asking. I use the phrase “world view” informally, as in perspective, not formally, as in global world view. So I am not referring to something on the order of Aristotelian/Thomism or Materialism, but rather about an orientation to design. So, when I write about the ID world view, I am referring to the belief or attitude that biological design is real, that it is detectable, and that its effects can be measured. I appreciate the question.StephenB
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
What a great conversation! Thank you all for your thoughtful and respectful interchange of ideas. This is what I was hoping for at the ASA annual meeting, not just within the interpersonal relationships (which, Dr. Gregory, were excellent), but from the podium and in the meetings. I am very aware that what was said from the platform might have artificially prevented disagreements in the corridors. After all, those of a timid disposition (obviously not me) would not have expressed views that they were warned against holding, perhaps ensuring that interpersonal relationships remained friendly, if shallow. In answer to your implied question, Ted, yes, what I reported about what was said from the podium was accurate—I took notes. In fact, the recordings show that some of what was said by Dr. Hayhoe was even more objectionable than what I reported. As Timaeus advised in his uniformly clear and helpful posts, this incivility from the podium must be curbed so that the ASA will provide an “open forum” where ideas can be “discussed without fear of unjust condemnation.” After all, where the leaders lead, the flock soon follows. Timaeus summarizes my position very accurately when he says, “Dr. Crocker is concerned less about the nominal beliefs of the organization and more about the attitudes which she finds among some of its members, attitudes which in her view are affecting the institution’s behavior and hence its mission.” At this point, I do need to apologize to those who have taken so much time to comment on my post only to find that I do not reply. There are several reasons for this. First, this is my first foray into posting an article that has attracted widespread comment and, as such, I was not aware of the need to set aside time for reading and writing and, therefore, did not do so. I have a couple of biology consultancy projects on the go, not to mention the work of leading a nonprofit. Therefore, I regret that I have not been able to take a more active part in the discussions. Second, as Dr. Gregory points out, I am a trained immunologist, not a philosopher or theologian, so do not have much to add to a discussion about Biblical hermeneutics! I do hasten to add, however, that this is not because I received my education in the USA. I did not. Three of my four degrees were earned in the UK, where they also do not train scientists in philosophy or theology. Therefore, I am aware that, short of my natural ability to reason and observe, my reading of the Bible, and my thirty years as an Anglican, I am not qualified to comment. Yes Ted, I will buy and read Ramm. Meanwhile, I tend to run everything I write by family members who are Oxford-trained theologians. But, if Dr. G is offering… Finally, I note Timaeus’ advice that “sooner or later she and those who agree with her are going to have to make the case, within the ASA, that the Biblical hermeneutics of the “liberals” are unacceptable” and agree that, not being theologically trained, this would be difficult for me personally to do. But, I am aware of many scientists who also trained in theology or philosophy and are more than capable of fulfilling this role. Perhaps we could listen to them.Caroline Crocker
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Gregory: My apologies. I never saw your rejoinder. Now I've gone back and read it. There aren't really fixed conditions for "membership" in ID, as far as I know, Gregory. I suppose that the essence of ID would be summed up two broad positions: (1) skepticism regarding the creative powers of neo-Darwinian and analogous "chancey" mechanisms; (2) belief that the universe or some part thereof bears signs of intelligent design. As you can see just from looking at them, these two broad positions cover a lot of ground, and that means ID doesn't have a narrow "orthodoxy." And since the "membership bar" is so low, all kinds of people can call themselves supporters of ID: YECs, OECs, agnostics, Deists, philosophers who accept teleological arguments, and believers in various non-Christian religions. ID is not a creed or a church or a political party that can keep people out. It's more like, say the environmental movement. Among environmentalists you have left-wing Democrats and "crunchy con" Republicans; you have vegetarians and meat-eaters; you have pro- and anti-capital punishment people; you have a variety of stances on foreign policy; you have capitalists and socialists; you have Christians and practitioners of Wicca; you have feminists and male chauvinists; etc. You can't really keep anyone out of the environmental movement. If a guy shows up one day to clean up the litter in a public park, you can't say: "Sorry, we don't allow Republicans in the environmental movement." If he wants to help, you welcome him. Similarly, if someone shows up at a debate and bashes Darwinism and argues that the bacterial flagellum is designed, you can't say: "We don't accept your arguments about Darwin and design, because you think the earth is only 6,000 years old." Obviously one ID proponent can disagree with another, but the disagreement won't be over the two broad positions I've stated. So obviously Michael Behe disagrees with those ID people who think that evolution has not happened. But he doesn't therefore try to sue them for using the label "ID." He works with them where there is common ground, and follows his own lights where there isn't. I don't see him as trying to "appease" anybody. If he were trying to "appease" YECs, he would not have published *The Edge of Evolution*. I myself see no problem with this "big tent" approach. I know that many, including perhaps yourself, would like to see ID define itself more narrowly, both on scientific and theological questions. But ID isn't like the early Church, which could call a council of Nicaea, settle its doctrine, and then enforce the result. The early Church already possessed a rough unity which could make such a doctrinal agreement possible. ID is not a "body" in the sense that the early Church was. It an intellectual and social alliance of many distinct bodies, and of some stray individuals who identify with no body at all. It thus proceeds not on the assumption of absolute unity, but on the assumption of limited common goals. It therefore cannot conduct itself as though it were a church or a school of political theory which looks to the writings of a single Master. Or, in American terms, ID is never going to pass beyond the stage of the Articles of Confederation to the American Constitution. I think that you and others want to see ID adopt a sort of religious and political Constitution, which could then be used to keep certain people out, and I have a pretty good idea which people you would like to see kept out. But it isn't going to happen. The ID people are content with the alliance that they have forged, even if the rest of the world finds it odd or incomprehensible. Now, regarding the ASA, that is a different problem. The ASA is a body of Christian scientists, not a body of ID supporters. (There are some ID supporters in it, but ID is not the raison d'etre of the organization.) As scientists, ASA members have to come to some agreement on what counts as acceptable science and what does not. Obviously they have come to the conclusion that a flat earth is not good science. Obviously they have come to the conclusion that a young earth is not good science. They have not yet come to a conclusion whether or not ID is good science; that debate is still going on. How it will turn out, I do not know, because I do not know the ASA from the inside. I cannot gauge the internal dynamics. What I do know is that the future of the ASA without the ID perspective can be seen by a glance at Biologos. On questions of origins, at least, the ASA will become an advocacy organization for TE, and probably a very narrow brand of TE of the sort that Biologos champions. As for your question: "So are you suggesting they are virtuous in their theology and without virtue in their scientific understandings?" I wasn't making any comment on the quality of the *contents* of creationist theology. I was praising the *motivation* of some creationists, i.e., I respect the fact that they take traditional Christianity seriously, and not as something that can be abandoned or rewritten piece by piece, in accord with every new demand of "science" or "history." When you compare their cautious defense of tradition with that of some of the wildly liberal pastors and theologians who post on Biologos, who ask "How high?" every time someone speaking for "science" says "Jump!", the creationists often come across as much more admirable *human beings*. They understand that religious traditions are not something you abandon or drastically modify, merely in order not to be ridiculed by the intelligentsia. They take seriously the words of Jesus that the world will sometimes be very hard on those who are faithful, but that they must hold fast. I think the creationists draw the lines in the sand in the wrong place -- Genesis literalism, a wooden understanding of inerrancy, and so on -- but I find their fundamental religious attitude more in tune with the Gospels than the aspirations to middle-class intellectual respectability which appear to drive many of the former-creationists-turned-TEs who populate Biologos. The bad science of creationists follows from their literalist hermeneutic. If they would abandon that hermeneutic, they would no longer need to do bad science. But that literalist hermeneutic, while misguided in my opinion, is adopted because they take the Bible and the theological tradition seriously in a way that many Biologos columnists fail to do. The beauty of ID is that it allows one to adopt all the creationist criticisms of Darwinism which are actually based on scientific considerations, while abandonding all the creationist criticisms of Darwinism that are based on a literalist hermeneutic. As for your last question, regarding what a YEC could say that would be intolerable for ID, I would say that what YECs believe privately or confess in their churches is of no concern to ID, but if a YEC started to argue from religious authority, instead of from the data provided by nature, ID would renounce those arguments. So, for example, if someone argued: "There is design in biology because Psalm X says that we are assembled by God in the womb," ID proponents would have to nix that as an acceptable argument to be included in their publications. But when has any major ID proponent argued in this way? I'm told that Paul Nelson is a YEC, but if I hadn't been told that, I'd never know it. All his columns here are about the views of various scientists, about the arguments for and against a last universal common ancestor, etc. I've never seen anything but science and philosophy of science in his writing. And if, for the sake of argument, he privately believed that the earth was only 10,000 years old (in fact, I think he has no fixed view on the age of the earth, but let's suppose he did), if none of his arguments for design in biology, or against neo-Darwinian evolution, depended logically on his opinion about the age of the earth, what would it matter? There have been famous scientists who have gone in for phrenology or attending seances, but if their beliefs in those areas don't affect the quality of their research in their physics or their chemistry, what does it matter? As long as YEC beliefs about the age of the earth, or the interpretation of Genesis, are kept out of any arguments they make regarding Darwinism or design, ID as a movement is indifferent to those beliefs. I probably agree more with Darrel Falk than with Paul Nelson regarding a number of things, e.g., the age of the human race, but there is no doubt in my mind that Paul Nelson has a knowledge of evolutionary theory, especially current evolutionary theory, that vastly surpasses that of Darrel Falk, because Darrel doesn't keep current. He's too busy doing TE apologetics to do real science anymore. And to my mind, someone like that, someone who purports to defend "evolution" without having a clue what Shapiro and Koonin and Newman and other leading-edge theorists have been saying on the subject, is much more of an embarrassment to "good science" than a young earth creationist who keeps up with the literature. I think that you and others are making far too much of the creationist-ID connection. The leading "creationists" in the ID movement do not argue from Biblical texts, and they have an impressive string of Ph.D.s from very good schools (Meyer from Cambridge, Nelson from Chicago, Wells from Yale and U. of California, etc.) If you want to argue that their scientific arguments are invalid, then by all means do so. But you can't say they base their arguments for ID on the Bible or on their private theologies. That's simply not true. T.Timaeus
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
"the ID world view" - StephenB Is ID a 'worldview,' according to anyone else at Uncommon Descent other than StephenB? Or is this just a case of someone elevating 'ID-science' ill-advisedly into an 'ID world view'? Maybe Nick will chime in with 'it's a free country' again. It would seem to be valuable in such cases to have an ID-Theology spelled out, so people could better tease apart 'ID-science' from 'ID-ideology.' To help guard against elevating science into worldview, doesn't building an ID-Theology make sense? This would give Caroline Crocker a theological argument to potentially influence ASA's theology, which is home not just to 'liberals' but also to 'conservatives.' p.s. a 'data first process' & at the same time a 'world view'! = )Gregory
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Timaeus @32. Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is evident that you have given this matter a great deal of thought in the past. I will provide a response in as few words as possible. Three individuals in this blog have shared their experience with the ASA. Carolyn Crocker, William Dembski, and one blogger have all testified to the fact that they were mistreated in some way and each characterized the ASA culture as being hostile to the ID world view, which is essentially the same point I made in my own critical remarks. In my judgment, Ted has listened respectfully to their protests but has not, in my judgment, taken them seriously enough. At the same time, both Ted and Gregory have insulted me personally and directly, and those insults were obviously inspired by my negative criticism of ASA and their misguided perception that I am not entitled to pass judgment on the matter because I have never been a member. Trivializing Dembski’s complaint, Ted writes this: “Bill’s point is consistent with what I have heard from numerous other folks in the ID movement–namely, that the ASA is irrelevant to them (or has become irrelevant to them). I’m involved with X or Y and don’t have time for Z (what the ASA does).” The problem is that this wasn’t “Bill’s point.” Where does Dembski say the ASA was “irrelevant to him?” For that matter, where does Carolyn Crocker say that she doesn’t “have time?” Ted is discounting the essence of the problem and reframing it to serve the interests of the ASA. The reasons these individuals leave, or consider leaving, is because of the way they are treated and because they feel awkward in a Christian Darwin, anti-ID culture. Just as Ted seems to read his hopes for the ASA into Dembskis comments, he also seems to read his pet criticism of ID proponents into my comments. I did not suggest that “Darwinism” was the sole reason that liberal Christians seek to demythologize the Bible or question the historicity of Adam and Eve, and I made this point clear more than one time. Even so, Ted spent an enormous amount of time and space trying to refute that strawman, apparently in an attempt to evade the more difficult questions. To sum up, I asked about his apparent proclivity to conflate, and simultaneously identify with, two logically incompatible world views, Traditional Theistic Evolution and Christian Darwinism. Indeed, it was I who found it necessary to make this distinction, one which both Ted and Gregory seem unable to grasp or unwilling to confront. When I say that the ASA culture is predominantly Christian Darwin, I accepted the burden of articulating exactly what that means and what it doesn’t mean, which I tried to do in as few words as possible. In such a discussion, it seemed natural enough to ask questions about Ted’s own views on the topic since they obviously inform his perspective on the quality of ASA’s communicative culture. After all, a Christian Darwinist whose own views on evolution are conflicted and incoherent, if indeed his are, will hold much sympathy for an organization’s culture that labors under that same intellectual burden. As usual, little came of it. Unfortunately, it has been my experience in dealing with Theistic Evolutionists that they will not submit their ideas to scrutiny. That pattern continued on this thread. Moving forward, I agree with your assertion that many parts of the Bible are open to multiple interpretations. It is also true, though, that Christians often play the ambiguity card so that they will not have to submit to the authority of inconvenient teachings. In the present context, I suppose we may disagree on one point because I can’t imagine any two Biblical truths that are less ambiguous than the historicity of Adam and Eve (confirmed for Catholics by Pope Pius XII [Humana Generis]) and the declaration that God’s handiwork is evident in nature [self interpreting]. To me, these are not in the same category as topics more vulnerable to the vagaries of phenomenology, such as science’s early conclusions about a stationary earth or a static universe. If you are asking me for my position about the ascent of the intellect to matters of faith, I hold that after all attempts to reconcile the two have failed, Scripture (as interpreted by the magisterium of the Catholic Church) trumps science. For me, the historicity of Adam and Even is a non-negotiable tenet of Christianity. On this point, I think you may be misunderstanding a critical distinction with one of your questions. The term “Sola Scriptura,” which I reject as a Catholic, pertains to the belief that the Bible contains all the truths necessary for salvation. The Catholic view is that God’s revelation is contained both in the Sacred Oral Tradition, that is, preaching of the apostles which informed Sacred Scripture, and in Sacred Scripture itself, which is a partial written record of that Sacred Tradition. In other words, all the truths of salvation cannot be known solely through Scripture. That is a different relationship than the one between faith and science (or, from a broader perspective, faith and reason). On matters of scientific methodology, however, I am not a Bible first Creationist. In that context, I am a data first analyst. That is why I defend ID as a data first process against critics who portray design detection as a faith-based enterprise. On matters of epistemology, faith and reason are, for me, mutual partners in the acquisition of knowledge, but when I say mutual, I mean mutual. As with any dialogue, each must be permitted to scrutinize the other. I hope this clarifies my position. Thank you for askingStephenB
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
I also regret the focus shifted to A&E, which drifted away from the main point - Caroline Crocker's theological disagreements with ASA, how YECs (and others) are viewed and treated there, the 'direction' of ASA (& the IDM), etc. Could you clarify what you think a 'non-design worldview' is, StephenB? I have no idea what a 'design worldview' might mean. Could you direct us to published literature on this or is this just your jargon? Many people in ASA have stated they believe in a non-scientific meaning of 'design' and even in the scientifically unprovable 'creation/Creation' of the universe. Perhaps many people in the ASA simply think that ID is trying to force a particular concept/term into a field in which it is not welcome? Michel Foucault once wrote: "Look everywhere for power, you will find it." Is this the same type of position you are advocating wrt 'design' - look for it everywhere, it is there? "design is an illusion, which is a corollary of the Darwinian principle of unguided evolution" - StephenB Design is obviously 'real' and not an 'illusion'. Even the most stringent atheist will agree with this...when you specify you are speaking about human artefacts. This doesn't have anything to do with C. Darwin, oftm, with R. Dawkins. It has to do with the desire to have 'design' accepted as a legitimate term 'in biology.' In any case, if one would speak about an (intelligent) 'design-worldview,' then wouldn't it make sense to propose an ID-Theology, to ground or anchor that 'worldview,' that is, unless one can hold an atheistic 'design worldview'?Gregory
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Since you're done with Todd Wood, maybe you'd be willing to return to my questions to you in 15.4.1.1.1, Timaeus? "Is there a place where ID states its approach to the ideology of YEC? Does it hold a doctrine of ‘appeasement’ between geological and cosmologial sciences and biblical literalist ideology?" When I say "ID states," it would suffice to have an official policy position by Discovery Institute about approximate age of earth, universe, or about 'how to treat' YECists and why. Part of the disappointment expressed in the OP was about perceived 'hostility' towards YECs and their 'young earth' views. Of course, if a YEC walks into a geology department, they may or may not be treated with hostility when they promote their 'ideology/worldview-based science', but they wouldn't be taken seriously if they suggested 'thousands, not millions.' Should YECs expect a 'fair hearing' at ASA about 'age of Earth'? Does the IDM give YECs a 'fair hearing' scientifically? If so, why? Likewise, how do you expect a 'flat earther' to be treated at ASA; with 'due respect' for their 'scientific opinion'?! Iow, *just because they are a Christian,* does this mean that they can hold whatever view of/towards scientific topics they want and therefore 'anything goes' wrt science at ASA? Such a view as the latter seems imho as too much capitulation to ideology, thus pushing the label of tolerance. What could a YEC say that would be deemed intolerable for the IDM, thus requiring it/them to finally take a stand against 'crackpottery'?Gregory
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
---Gregory: "Well, I’ll listen to a respected former President of ASA about what ASA members think and believe and not some internet chat-head who simply doesn’t know (speaking for “the entire premise” of ASA) yet nevertheless seeks to attack fellow Christians." And I will take the word of former disenfranchised members who report of being treated like second class citizens than the rationalizations of those in leadership positions who have a vested interest in maintaining ASA's underserved image of evenhandedness, just as I will dismiss the credibility of an insulting name-caller like yourself who knows nothing of my background and confuses the difference between a personal attack on Christians and a negative description of an institution's culture.StephenB
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Apologies, I was referring to your opening comment. And my only point was that I couldn't see any difference between the "hypothetical" approach you seemed to be commending and the "schizophrenic" approach you attributed to Todd Wood.
And now it’s my turn to be puzzled. If I correctly understood a comment you made to someone else on another thread, you are an unbeliever, i.e., you do not think there is a God. Why, then would you care what I or anyone thinks about how to reconcile science and theology?
Because I'm interested in the difference between good and bad theological arguments, and between coherent and incoherent notions of what scientific methodology can and can't do! In any case, I tend to resist labels. I don't think of myself as "an unbeliever" - I simply don't think the evidence supports the case for an afterlife, and that there is no good reason to posit mind/matter duality. In fact, I would argue, good reasons for adopting a monist model. But I used to think there were. And I still enjoy good theological arguments (i.e. arguments that to my mind are consistent with what science tells us about the world).
Would theology not be, for you, just a tissue of deranged imaginings?
Depends on the theology, and depends what the "imaginings" are used for.
And would that not mean that all positions which take seriously the claims of religion — that of Todd Wood, that of Biologos, etc. — are not worth the efforts of the scientist to try to “harmonize” with? Do explain, if you feel the inclination.
I have huge respect for any worldview that seems to me to be rigorous and coherent - has integrity. I also have huge respect for anyone who rigorously insists on integrity. Whether I agree with them or not! Indeed, as a scientist, I regard all positions as provisional (that's why I don't like labelling myself although I accept that some positions can be more or less accurately summed up with a label), and so I'm always interested in any view that seems to me to make sense. Also, in deconstructing views that seem to me to make nonsense :) BTW, I haven't forgotten your posts on the computer thread.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, you have to be clearer in your pronoun references. You open your reply with "No, I did not mean that." I have no idea which of the many points I made in my previous reply that you are referring to with the word "that." As for your other comments, I thought we had already dropped the discussion of whether Todd Wood was "schizophrenic" and were now trying only to resolve the point whether Todd Wood would under any circumstance accept rational and empirical arguments for evolution. I argued that he never would, even if after a lifetime of scientific research he could not come up with an alternate scientific explanation to evolution. And I argued that the reason that he could never accept evolution, even if he was convinced that it was the best explanation that science could offer, was his commitment to a certain literalist/inerrantist way of reading the Bible. I think I have demonstrated by direct quotation that this is his position. And nothing in the article you referred me to contradicts anything Wood said in the article I quoted, so I continue to affirm that I have understood Wood rightly. As for my own position on theology and science, as my background is academic, I think that everything in this area needs to be carefully defined, qualified, nuanced, etc., so I would be inclined to answer you with a 300-page footnoted scholarly book, and I'm not sure you want that kind of response at the moment. In any case, I certainly did not undertake any harmonization of science and religion in my comments to StephenB or in anything I said about Caroline Crocker or Ted Davis, so I don't understand why you would expect to find my own harmonization set forth anywhere on this thread. I undertook only to analyze the positions of the people I was responding to or writing about, and to suggest how they could make their positions stronger or more clear. I hope that I was useful to them in these efforts. And now it's my turn to be puzzled. If I correctly understood a comment you made to someone else on another thread, you are an unbeliever, i.e., you do not think there is a God. Why, then would you care what I or anyone thinks about how to reconcile science and theology? Would theology not be, for you, just a tissue of deranged imaginings? And would that not mean that all positions which take seriously the claims of religion -- that of Todd Wood, that of Biologos, etc. -- are not worth the efforts of the scientist to try to "harmonize" with? Do explain, if you feel the inclination. In any case, I'm done talking about Todd Wood. T.Timaeus
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, It's like abiogenesis. "Huge" is the problem. There are too many varying and often contradictory hypotheses, some tested, others not, to say that together they all support one broad, sweeping conclusion. At that point the overall theory becomes vague and weak. They are exactly what ID is frequently accused of being, theories of 'something happened.' It looks and smells like the conclusions were the starting point. This is further indicated because in both cases, in practice, the hypotheses are viewed and spoken of as facts.ScottAndrews
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
There isn't anything in that paper that demonstrates prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. And it is not a matter of thinking that it boils down to "it looks like it to me", that is exactly what it is. You can disagree all you want but you don't have anything to support your disagreement.Joseph
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
I have presented you with a paper, Joseph. You may you think "it boils down to 'it looks like it to me'" I disagree.Elizabeth Liddle
October 19, 2011
October
10
Oct
19
19
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply