Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ted Davis — “The Theistic Evolutionists’ Theistic Evolutionist” — Rising above the fray

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Ted Davis, a historian of science at Messiah College, used to be part of a list I moderate. He has some good insights into the history of science (especially into the work of Robert Boyle), but he consistently misses the mark concerning ID. Here is a nice synopsis of his view of ID (also with a jab at UD). It is written to Pim van Meurs, as a mentor would write to his disciple. The short of his view is that ID is a reaction to the scientific materialism of Richard Dawkins, which it tries to displace by setting up a new science, which is really just a disguised form of religion. His counsel is to rise above the fray and realize that both are ideologically motivated. Ideological motivation is all fine and well, but has ID identified fundamental conceptual flaws and evidential lacunae in the conventional materialistic understanding of biological origins and is its appeal to intelligence conceptually sound and empirically supported? I have yet to see Ted address that question.

From: Ted Davis
Date: Mon Apr 02 2007 – 08:56:27 EDT

For Pim and others,

I can only echo David’s comments about Dawkins, who came across in the interview as a much kinder, gentler person than he does in many of his books and articles. Dawkins simply hates religion, and does think that religious people are either stupid or wicked, if not both. And he has company in this.

I recommend to all, the chapter on the “Council of Despair,” in Karl Giberson & Donald Yerxa, “SPecies of Origins.” It’s a splendid overview of scientific atheism in the past couple of decades. For anyone who doubts that this view really exists and is influential, take a look at “Wired” magazine for Nov 2006, with its cover story on “The New Atheism: No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science.”

Also, Pim, I esp recommend that you step away a bit from PT (which is not much more objective than Dembski’s blog, when it comes right down to it) and realize something very, very important about ID. Philip Johnson was responding to two specific influences, when he wrote “Darwin on Trial.” One, to be sure, was Denton’s book, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” but the other one was Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker.” If there were no Dawkins and company, I have little doubt, there would be no Johnson and company as a direct, highly vocal response.

This is something about which the scientific establishment is still somewhat ambivalent, IMO. Some do see what Dawkins is doing in the name of science to be a completely inappropriate extrapolation of science that goes well beyond the sphere and authority of science. But others do not–people like Steven Weinberg, the late Isaac Asimov, the late Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, or Steven Pinker. These are highly influential people, Pim, and it is not surprising to me if they provoke a response in the form of ID. What ID is going goes well beyond science, of course–and they admit this, despite their continued insistence that ID is nevertheless scientific. But Dawkins and company believe in the religion of science (as Dawkins himself as called it), so why not have a science of religion (ID) in response to it? Dawkins’ work goes so far beyond merely debunking ID–which itself is just a big way of debunking his own work. He wants to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of all traditional religions, using science as his club. The sooner this is understood, and the sooner its link with ID is recognized, the sooner the conversation about science education can move
forward.

My best,
Ted

SOURCE: American Scientific Affiliation discussion group.

Comments
I didn't mean to come across as putting neo-darwinian common descent in the same category as modern geocentrism. Neo-darwinian common descent has no support from the evidence and is contradicted by pretty much all of the evidence. Whereas mordern geocentrism (geocentricity) can hold it's own with modern heliocentrism. Interestingly the ancient hindu cosmological schema is almost identical to the modern geocentricity theory. The only major difference that I could see from a quick perusal of the writings of the leading geocentricity theorists is that in the Puranic accounts of the cosmos there are a great many universe bubbles within an infinite godhead, each with a geocentric cosmology, whereas in the biblically based geocentric theory there appears to be only one universe bubble (our own) within an infinite godhead.mentok
April 13, 2007
April
04
Apr
13
13
2007
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Ted I think the comparison between the so called lack of "proof" for heliocentrism is categorically different from the so called proof of common descent. With heliocentrism we can make direct observations and then calculations based upon those observations without having to be outside the solar system. With common descent we can make no observations of common descent therefore all calculations are based upon evidence which is ambiguous at best and self contradictory or specious at worst. For example you mention the fossil record as an example of indirect proof of common descent when in fact the fossil record is contradictory to common descent for numerous reasons e.g. cambrian explosion where all the phyla appear without any sign of common descent, no true transitional fossils (fossils of animals showing the various stages of the development of new limbs and organs), no competent mechanisms which can account for the development of specified complexity i.e competent mechanism which can cause a flightless animal to develop wings, etc. There are also many other genetic and molecular problems with common descent but those problems can be overlooked if one accepts common descent with ID. Without ID common descent not only lacks any real indirect evidence but confronts contradiction after contradiction from every angle. So I think your proposition is a false analogy because you are comparing a worldview that is trying to prove a specific unique theological point of view with ID which is trying to promote and objective (honest) appraisal of the evidence which is not guided by an enforced bias by creating a priori restraining paremeters on where the data can lead.mentok
April 13, 2007
April
04
Apr
13
13
2007
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
More from Ted Davis:
Mentok writes: “Ted for me the difference between condescending and non condescending criticism when it comes to intricate science related issues is that non condescending critique should be in-depth, without resort to formal or informal fallacies of some type, which doesn’t present a single viewpoint as representative of the majority, and which is objective in that one’s own personal biases or agenda is not what is trying to be presented as the correct vision regardless of where the evidence leads. In other words critique should be more then just an attempt at shallow showmanship in order to gain or prove oneself worthy of respect.” That’s a very clear definition, mentok, even if it is not the one that I would give. If this is what it means to be condescending, then I could fill this blog with condescending passages from ID advocates (leaving aside their critics, who would be equally guilty). But I won’t condescend to do that. I’ll simply note in passing that the parts of my essays that you identified as condescending, were not the parts in which I was commenting on some of those critics. The little thought experiment suggested above might perhaps be carried out. We’ve been talking about some of the things I said. Now, I’d like to turn the tables, mentok. Let’s talk about something you said, in comment #37, responding to Rich Blinne: “That’s a pretty strong statement especially when considering the fact that the ‘proof’ is nothing more then conjecture based upon homology and or pure speculation. The evidence for common descent can also be used as proof of common design, therefore it is not ‘proof’ of anything except of dishonesty in claiming that there is proof. Common descent is unprovable even if it was true. Why? Because actual proof would require a time machine.” I sense that this particular type of objection to evolution (and also to modern geology, though you did not comment directly on that) is widely held. I think it relates closely to the distinction that YECs have made for decades, between what are sometimes called “origins science” and “observational science” or “empirical science.” In the abstract, I think it’s a legitimate distinction to draw. The late Ernst Mayr gets at it from a very different angle in his last book, What Makes Biology Unique? But Mayr and most other scientists never push it nearly as hard as the creationists do, obviously. And, in the abstract, I would go even further than you went; I would say, in a very theoretical way, that ultimately there is no valid inductive logic that will provide us with incontrovertible “proof” of anything at all. But that’s not the sense in which scientists typically talk about “proof”; the sort of certainty implied here is for mathematicians and logicians, not scientists or engineers or physicians. I recently wrote an essay (in process of publication) called “Galileo and the Garden of Eden: Historical Reflections on Creationist Hermeneutics,” in which I talk about the significance of this distinction in YEC thinking. It’s absolutely crucial in creationist hermeneutics, I concluded, for keeping Galileo’s figurative approach to astronomical texts in the Bible from being applied to the early parts of Genesis. In other words, you need to push this type of distinction very hard in order keep Galileo out of the garden of Eden. I have a growing sense that it is also crucial to ID -- not necessarily to ID as it proclaims itself to be, but ID as it is actually practiced -- and I’d like to hear what you think about this opinion. Right or wrong? Is it crucial to ID to deny the legitimacy of the so-called historical sciences? Let me take this further now. The paper I mention above focuses mostly on astronomy, specifically on the solar system and how two contemporary groups of YECs (geocentrists and heliocentrists) respond to Copernicanism. Evolution comes in only near the end, when I draw some larger conclusions. In teaching about Galileo and Copernicus, something that it seems I’m always doing, I often think about how the geocentrists justify their rejection of a moving earth. (To see some of their materials, just google “geocentrism” or “geocentricity,” and you’ll find more than you need or want.) The bottom line, theologically, is that they simply reject the principle of accommodation, not only as used by Galileo but even as used by John Calvin (and Calvin actually used it far more than Galileo), who wasn’t even a heliocentrist as far as we know. The bottom line, philosophically and scientifically, is that they just do not regard heliocentrism as a “fact.” In looking at all the kinds of evidence they do not accept as conclusive (you name it, they don’t accept it), it seems to boil down to this: no one has ever gone above the plane of the solar system for a few years, looked “down” on it, and watched the earth and the other planets orbit the sun. Short of that type of direct observation, the earth’s motion just is not to be accepted as a “fact.” True, they offer some sophisticated answers too, based on the relativity of motion and the absolute authority of the Bible (as they interpret it), but the empirical arguments boil down to what I just stated. I am struck by the similarity to the type of comment you made that I quote above. Unless I have misunderstood you, you seem to be saying that we just can’t have any real science of the fossil record, b/c we did not and can not observe directly just what took place. Am I understanding you correctly, mentok? If not, please tell me what I am missing. On the other hand, if I correctly understand your point, then I would like to hear any comments you may have about what I have said here, concerning the similarity of attitude that I find between the modern geocentrists, who do not regard the earth’s motion as a “fact,” and the attitude you expressed concerning our inability to “prove” anything about the history of biological types. I might or might not want to respond, but I very much want to listen.
dopderbeck
April 13, 2007
April
04
Apr
13
13
2007
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Ted for me the difference between condescending and non condescending criticism when it comes to intricate science related issues is that non condescending critique should be in-depth, without resort to formal or informal fallacies of some type, which doesn't present a single viewpoint as representative of the majority, and which is objective in that one's own personal biases or agenda is not what is trying to be presented as the correct vision regardless of where the evidence leads. In other words critique should be more then just an attempt at shallow showmanship in order to gain or prove oneself worthy of respect. As for the claim that there is no theory of ID, that all ID in literature fall under "philosophy of science" etc. We will just have to agree to disagree. Both neo-darwinism and ID are postulating causes for the agreed upon effects. They are sharing the same bank of scientific research and data and methodology. ID proponents make the claim that matter alone, without purpose or plan, cannot account for the effects seen and therefore a more competent cause is required. Neo-darwinists make the claim that matter alone is a competent cause for the effects seen by all and that no other cause is needed or even allowed to be considered. Why should the outlook which does not limit the type of causation which can be considered be labled as religion or philosophy, while the other outlook which does restrict and confine causation to a priori subjective philosophical parameters be labled as science? They are both using the same data and the same methods of interpreting that data yet have different conclusions on what that data implies. Beyond that there is no more reproducable proof of evolution then there is for ID. If ID is not science then neo-darwinism certainly isn't. If neo-darwinism is a bonafide science with something to teach then so is ID, they differ only in what is acceptable to be considered as plausible cause. Which is acting more in the spirit of unbiased objectivity when it comes to science research?mentok
April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Further response from Ted Davis:
This is a response to some of mentok's points in comment #123. Let me start by thanking you, mentok, for reading the essays I linked. And for reading them carefully, so that our points of disagreement are clear. When I stated my points of disagreement with ID, you see some of them as somewhat condescending b/c they are stated with authority, as if there were no other views on this topic worth considering. Is that a fair representation of your point? (I'm putting words into your mouth and if they aren't right I hope you'll correct me.) Assuming this is a correct understanding, then this would be my reply. I write with conviction when I write -- at least I try to, when I have a conviction (which isn't always). But lots of people do that, including most of the leading advocates of ID -- especially when they write for opinion magazines, which is what my essays about ID were published in. Isn't this true? Is my tone significantly different in this respect than that of (say) Philip Johnson or Bill Dembski? Do you see them as condescending, when they clearly and directly state their considered opinions about evolution or science education? Speaking for myself, I don't usually see it as condescending when I read another writer who also has conviction but whose views differ significantly from my own. Sometimes, to be sure, writers can be condescending (including ID authors), and I can do that too if I'm really annoyed -- when ( e.g.) I think that someone is simply being unfair, or dishonest, or condescending for that matter. But nearly all of what I wrote in those essays, I assure you, was not intended on my end to come across as condescending. That is, it wasn't intended to get under the skin of someone who disagrees with me. It was intended to convey, clearly and with conviction, views I have come to after expending a lot of time and energy thinking and reading about the issues. And, in some places, I intended to convey implicit advice about how to approach the whole ball of wax, or certain parts of the ball. You were bothered by some of this, but perhaps that is mainly b/c you don't agree with the advice. When Phil, Bill, and others criticize mainstream science, they often offer advice about what should be done. They are Christian scholars, opining on matters of importance to which they have devoted much study; the only difference in my case is the content of the opinions. Let me propose a thought experiment, and you can take it as a rhetorical question to which no actual reply is needed. Please reread any parts of those essays where you agree with what I am saying, esp where you strongly agree if that applies. I do say some things that are quite critical of "the other side," and I am guessing you might agree with me. Do my comments come across there as condescending, or do you tend to say, "yes, you're right, I'm glad you said that"? If you also find them condescending, then maybe there is a problem with my style since that is not what I want to convey. If not, then maybe it's simply that you don't agree, and you'd prefer that I be less convicted myself. Turning to another of your points, let me respond to this one: "Also you sprinkle your articles with erroneous information that you try to pass off as obvious and true." [Here you insert a paragraph from my article on the Dover trial, as follows: At this point, there simply is no ID "theory" to teach - or even to practice in the laboratory, let alone to place at the center of a new scientific paradigm. ID currently consists only of an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution, combined with an appeal for scientists to add "design" to the set of explanatory principles they employ in biology and other sciences. ] Your claim that there is no ID theory to teach is mistaken as is your claim that ID is nothing more then a philosophical critique of neo-darwinism. The paragraph you are responding to here, mentok, was written shortly after a long phone call to a leading ID advocate. You would instantly know the name -- and no, it isn't Bill Dembski. I asked this person, point blank, whether there is presently an ID theory to teach as an alternative to evolution. I stated my view, made it clear that I was writing something, and wanted a frank evaluation of my view: was this a fair point? The words in the paragraph are mine, but they convey a view that is also shared by more than one prominent ID advocate. I doubt you will see this in published ID writings, but I didn't simply invent this as a cheap shot: I believe it is accurate, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't out to lunch on my own -- especially not a free lunch, if you will allow me a further joke. As for my "passing it off as obvious and true," I think it is much fairer to say this: readers will take it as obvious and true that this is my opinion. I stated my reasons clearly, based on my prior opinion that Thomas Kuhn's opinion about paradigm changes is correct. My language here is, "I am convinced that, ...." Wouldn't you agree that most readers will understand me as stating a considered opinion, not an obvious fact? If you want to take issue with Kuhn's opinion (many people do on various points), or how I am applying his opinion to ID, that's all well and good. I should also point out something else, which goes beyond what I wrote in the limited space I was allotted in the magazine, but which is one of the reasons I emphasized this "philosophy of science, not science" thing. At the Arkansas creationism trial, the late Judge Overton ruled in effect that science is what scientists do; since scientists don't do creationism -- you don't find creationism in the professional literature -- then creationism isn't science. That's a sociological definition of science, obviously, and one might take issue with it, but the point remains that it shaped one of the precedents that Judge Jones had to work with. This is partly what I was thinking of, when I wrote, "Rather, the defense kept insisting that ID is science, not philosophy of science, despite the near total lack of backing for that claim in the scientific literature." This is at the end of an example you offered of my talking down to people. In this case, I agree: I was more than a little annoyed by that particular piece of courtroom strategy, and I was talking down to the defense attorneys. Nearly all of the refereed literature advocating ID falls into or near philosophy of science, not science per se. That's a fact, not an opinion -- unless you take it as an opinion, not a fact, that philosophy of science is not science per se. Several examples of such literature were noted on the record by both sides in the trial, but the defense kept playing the "ID is science" card, despite the likelihood that it was going to be much harder to convince a neutral observer of this. The strategy I suggest in the article would have been much better, IMO; it would have stood a much better chance of making a secular case for teachers discussing aspects of ID in science classes. But most ID advocates think I'm wrong about this (and so do you), and Richard Thompson (lead counsel for the defense) agrees with them more than with me. Consequently, he passed on the one potentially winning hand available to him, IMO -- I'm quite sure it had at least crossed his mind, however briefly it may have been.
dopderbeck
April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Ted I wasn't only refering to the article you wrote on the Dover trial, I was refering to the other articles you gave links to as well. My take on your writings on ID is that you seem to believe that there are various problems with ID and the way it is presented. When you make your criticisms they come across like you are giving some parental advice on how ID is messing up and that your criticisms are obvious and true on the face of them. Since you mentioned the Dover article here is a bit you wrote
Similarly, public school science teachers have a legitimate secular purpose in discussing various philosophical objections to aspects of evolution that have been raised by scientists in the 147 years since Darwin's book was published. The general education of a science student is well served when such topics are introduced. Still, I cannot criticize the judge for overlooking this possibility, because the defense did not make a case for it. Rather, the defense kept insisting that ID is science, not philosophy of science, despite the near total lack of backing for that claim in the scientific literature.
And also
"Those who disagree with our holding," Jones wrote near the end of his opinion, "will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge." I make no such accusation, but The Discovery Institute did not hesitate. Hardly had the decision been issued than John West, a politics professor at Seattle Pacific University who is also a long-time fellow of the institute, offered the following response on the institute's webpage ( www.discovery.org ): "Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case. Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur." Someone may be deluded here, but I doubt it is the judge.
Also
It is not a strength of ID that it avoids offering a grand narrative. As the late Thomas Kuhn argued, scientists do not abandon an existing paradigm unless or until they see a better paradigm out there to embrace. I am convinced that, without such a paradigm, ID will never be regarded as science, not even bad science, by the scientific community. But in order for ID to provide a plausible alternative to evolution, its proponents would have to address the one issue they least want to face: the age of the earth and the universe. Their refusal to discuss this issue directly and publicly has less to do with science than with movement politics. Currently, the ID movement is, to use its own language, a "big tent" under whose sprawling canvas there is plenty of room for differences of opinion about theological and biblical issues related to the age of the earth. A full public discussion of these issues would not disturb most of the intellectual leaders of the movement. But it would alienate the many grass-roots creationists who support ID - and who provide it with much of its political support. So while ID is not creationism, creationism remains the elephant in the room. Judge Jones evidently smelled the elephant quite distinctly.
From one of the other articles
A principal goal of the ID movement is to convince working scientists that information cannot and does not spring from matter, which they understand as brute and inert. This is essentially the same dualistic conception of matter that was shared by the founders of mechanistic science in the seventeenth century, such as René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton. However, although the mind/matter distinction remains philosophically problematic and some types of dualism may be possible to defend, most contemporary scientists (including most Christian scientists) no longer hold to this type of dualism, even if they retain the mechanistic science it was once linked with. The same is true of many contemporary theologians, especially those committed to panentheism and/or process theology. They generally hold a more active view of matter and its capabilities, either that matter itself can think or at least that cognition arises out of it in some naturalistic manner yet to be determined. This is one important reason why adherents of the ID program are facing an uphill climb. They don�t really confront the fact that the philosophical landscape has changed, and they fail to engage those Christian thinkers who recognize this.
I take those as condescending remarks and illustrative of your general mood of writing about ID. Also you sprinkle your articles with erroneous information that you try to pass off as obvious and true.
At this point, there simply is no ID "theory" to teach - or even to practice in the laboratory, let alone to place at the center of a new scientific paradigm. ID currently consists only of an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution, combined with an appeal for scientists to add "design" to the set of explanatory principles they employ in biology and other sciences.
Your claim that there is no ID theory to teach is mistaken as is your claim that ID is nothing more then a philosophical critique of neo-darwinism. Consider that if I make a valid scientific criticism that attempts to refute a basic assumptions made by neo-darwinists about some aspect of evolutionary theory then that is categorized by you as a "philosophical criticism", but if a neo-darwinist makes a scientific critique of and attempts to refute a basic assumption of ID then that is "science". To me that smacks of your overall attitude towards ID and evolution. From your writings it appears to me that you see yourself as the reasonable openminded well educated and rational adult trying to point out the obvious about the ID crowd. I don't have a problem with everything you write, I don't see all of it as condescending. Nor is it all unobjectionable to me, in fact I find you have some good ideas, but alas they have been put forth by countless others so I don't see them as original thoughts or ideas. I can appreciate that you seem to be motivated in this debate by your evangelizing agenda and therefore may want to come across as the "reasonable rational christian" so that your religious agenda is not hampered by being tarred with the ID brush. Or maybe I am wrong and you really believe that ID is wrong and that you want to enlighten people to that fact for philanthropic reasons.mentok
April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Here is a follow up comment Ted Davis wanted to post:
I suppose if I’m going to be condescending (see comment #120), then at least I can do it amiably. That’s something good, isn’t it? Well, if I’m going to be soooo 1859 dad, let me at least play out the role. Mentok, do you have a clue about the context for my article about the Dover trial? Do you realize that the issues debated there were very, very serious issues about the future of ID and public education? The judge, quite properly, was looking for ways to tie the specific situation in Dover to existing, decades-old precedents prohibiting the teaching of “creationism” in schools. That’s what judges do: they look to apply existing case law to the specific case in front of them. The very capably argued case for the plaintiffs put all the dots onto the table, and all the judge had to do was connect them. (And never mind that he borrowed most of the words from the plaintiffs -- judges do that all the time, as law professor David Opderbeck has explained in various places, it isn’t anything like plagiarism.) The defense did not adequately erase enough of those dots for the judge to have ruled differently, IMO. Nothing surprised me about his ruling, nothing at all, even though I dissented from parts of it. This context is really important for understanding my comments, mentok. What I did in that essay is to suggest that there may be a legally defensible way to discuss ID (and please note that “to discuss ID” is not at all the same as “teaching it as an alternative to evolution,” which I do not believe it has ever been) in public school science classes. That is, the judge’s ruling may have more wiggle room than the ACLU would like it to have, and if so it might be along the lines I suggested. I’m hardly in a position to render a legal opinion on my opinion -- Mr Opderbeck and others would be qualified -- but I have proposed something consistent with good secular educational pedagogy, and therefore is potentially legal, within existing case law -- including the Dover case itself. That’s the bottom line, and I hardly think that constitutes condescension. It may well prove to be wrong, but at least it’s respectfully wrong. Let me add that I have given a public lecture partly (not entirely) based on this essay in several venues, and no one has responded in the way you have. The first time I did this was for the Forum on Science, Ethics & Policy, a postdoc and grad student led organization at the Univ of Washington in Seattle. Right in the heart of ID country, but obviously at a place that was not exactly friendly to ID. A place where some students had gone around defacing the poster advertising my lecture, called “Honest Talk about Intelligent Design,” by circling the title and my Messiah College affiliation and writing “Yeah, Right,” in big letters on the posters. An audience that (by a show of hands in response to my questions) was overwhelmingly biology students, faculty, and postdocs, with a good representation of philosophers as well. (I invited TDI to send representatives, but none came.) Some in the audience were clearly sceptical of some of my arguments and conclusions, but if anything they thought I was far too generous to ID. The strongest support for my talk, incidentally, came from Arthur Fine, a leading philosopher who knows Bill very well (Bill can fill you in if he wishes). I was more than pleased by that, esp given Fine’s professional stature and lack of religious convictions (to the best of my knowledge). Thus, mentok, I’d like to ask you a question. What precisely is condescending about my essay? The fact that I don’t think ID is really an alternative to evolution? The fact that I think it is unwise to piggyback cultural transformation on criticisms of evolutionary theory? Or something else?
dopderbeck
April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
rblinne: One of the theological weaknesses of ID from a Reformed perspective ...
ID does not have to be premised on theology any more than the 2nd law of thermodynamics are premised on theology. The major reason ID's relation to theology is even so seriously considered by Christians is that it is proper to weigh whether any idea is in conformance to the faith one professes. If there is a conflict, one can then decide if one will reject the faith or reject the idea at variance with one's faith. But if one wishes to form a theological stamp of approval for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is fine. If the 2nd law passes doctrinal standards, then I suppose ID should be given a pass as well. However, a sceintific hypothesis is not a profession of faith. In fact, it is highly useful in mathematics to explore a hypothesis, assume it is true, in order to see if it is false. That is a classic Proof by Contradiction. When I speak of ID in the context of science, I offer it as a hypothesis. I may refer to ID in a theological context, but then, that is not formally the scientific formulation of the hypothesis, it is a personal view. If I say, "ID tells me God exists" that is a personal opinion, not a valid scientific formulation of what ID is. By way of comparison, I could say, "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says the universe had a beginning, therefore something brought the universe into existence, therefore the universe has a creator, therefore the 2nd law suggests to me God exists." That is an opinion about the 2nd law, it is not a scientific formulation of the 2nd law. The scientific formulation of ID theories are things like the 4th Law, LCI, displacent theorem, No Free Lunch, etc...... "ID is the study of patterns that signify intelligence". That is an awfully minimal hypothesis about artifacts in the physical world, and it's hard to see how it could be construed as a theological statement any more than Newton's approxmiation: F = ma Regarding the PCA's position on ID:
Report of the Creation Study Committee Thus, the church must be prepared to address the claimed "scientific truths" of the science communities and be prepared to "manage by fact" as the data from the science pours forth. The present day intelligent design movement would appear to be a good example of how the church in the broader evangelical context can be effective in this manner.
scordova
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
I read Ted's stuff and the reason I didn't comment on it was because while the views expressed were not hostile to ID in the way that is often seen when evolutionists give simplified vilifying caricatures of ID, at the same time what Ted wrote comes across as what you would expect from a father gently telling his teenage daughter that Justin Timberlake just may not be the musical genius she thinks he is. Amiable condescension is the mood Ted writes in. As far as making any interesting points...meh. It's nice that he can agree that teaching more objectively about neo-darwinian evolution rather then letting run rampant the wholesale indoctrination into it's cult would be a good thing in schools, but other then that, your soooo 1859 dad.mentok
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
I invite conversation about my views, once they are adequately understood. Any takers?
Ted Davis, Thanks for the list of required reading. =D For the record, I read your essay, Intelligent Design on Trial (twice) when you originally posted it. I even took the time to convert many of the statements in the article to text (I did it the hard way) so that it could be quoted. (The PDF is a non-OCR graphic scan). If it weren't for the fact that there was already a lively and extensive thread in progress dealing with TE and ID, I probably would have taken the time to ask some questions, to seek clarification to my understanding of your views However, at the end of it all, I am weary of the discussion, for a variety of reasons, none of which I'll bother to enumerate. Perhaps that's not the case with all here. When I've had the chance to take a brief holiday from the subject, I may revisit. However, there are in excess of 25,000 words here on this thread. Since you apparently have been following the discussion to some degree, perhaps you could summarize the misconceptions and offer your comments.Apollos
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Rich said: While David has noted that people tend to be TE or ID because of theological reasons I am the exception that proves the rule. Just to clarify -- I didn't actually say that. Someone else characterized what I said that way. What I was trying to say is just exactly what you just said about concursus and secondary causes.dopderbeck
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
I said: " I found his arguments so compelling I switched positions — slowly, after a few years." The reason I changed slowly was not due to the lack of force of his arguments but becuase I had to overcome my internal bias. Changing ones mind is rarely easy and it wasn't for me particularly with all the dire warnings produced by AiG.rblinne
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Scordova said: "I am member of the PCA and profess 95% of the Westminster Confession, the only portion I am very undecided about is the issue of the Sabbath. I was raised a Roman Catholic, but left that denomination when I joined the PCA many years ago." I have a common heritage and I was once an RE in the PCA. One of the theological weaknesses of ID from a Reformed perspective is that it fails to coincide with the doctrine of concursus. See Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 p. 598ff. A Scriptural example is the archer who shot an arrow at "random" and killed Ahab. This following concursus is still caused by God even though from a human perspective is "purposeless". If a physicist noted that the arrow followed a ballistic path invalidate this? Nope. Likewise, as the Westminster Confession you subscribed to says: "Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently." Gaps do not need to be filled by first causes but can be second causes such as evolution. This is one of the big misunderstandings concerning evolution theistic or no: that it is purposeless or unplanned. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't say that. Moving from theology to (computer) science for a second. You don't really understand genetic algorithms or other algorithms that use random processes to drive solutions such as simulated annealing. All of these have a cost function that designs an end such as minimize wire length in a semiconductor placement algorithm. The means are not specified. The problem is the solution space is often order NP-complete and thus you cannot do a brute force search. Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing search the solution space somewhat but not completely "randomly" to get a good but not optimum solution. If evolution is the mechanism of design then it gets around Voltaire's critique of Leibnitz' theodicy. For those who don't know my historical reference, Voltaire made fun of Leibnitz in Candide by having Pangloss constantly utter that this is "the best of all possible worlds". The design need not be optimum to be a design. Further, this particular kind of design allows life to adapt to different environments. With respect to biological evolution the cost function is survival and reproduction. This has been shown quite effectively by hundreds of thousands if not millions of studies to work to produce species. In my opinion, Behe's refusal to read the many, many studies that showed his irreducible complexity really wasn't lost the case in Dover. In fact, the judge noted in his decision that Behe's cross examination should be studied in law school. Having said all this, I am not saying like the secularists that evolution is a "theory of everything." It does not explain the origin of life because you need a mechanism to generate almost perfect copies (the almost part is critical) and you need life to generate life. Nor does it explain human morality because that doesn't optimize the cost function above. While David has noted that people tend to be TE or ID because of theological reasons I am the exception that proves the rule. I believe in evolution because the evidence points in that direction and I also believe in ID because the evidence points that way, also. I switched from YEC to TE because I had to review trial records of a member who was transfering to our church. Terry Gray was indefinitely suspended from office in the OPC because he was a TE (theistic evolutionist not teaching elder :-) ) I found his arguments so compelling I switched positions -- slowly, after a few years. If you want to see what changed my mind, read Terry's chapter in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation editted by Keith (not Kenneth) Miller. I believe that it is possible to believe both TE and ID because both groups have failed to disprove the other leaving the synthesis option viable.rblinne
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Ted Davis, If the thread you asked for is granted and I hope it will be, then both sides can have a chance to understand the other better. Right now the perception of ID in the general public is not what I see espoused on this site or by the Discovery Organization. The ones to blame for that misperception are the groups mentioned. We all here can point to the "rampant dishonesty" about ID in each of the various groups I mentioned. My comment is aimed to those who do not condemn these distortions and even more so to those who actually condone these expressions of dishonesty. Most make no attempt to understand before condemning and willfully distorting. When I was a kid, that was called bigotry. I believe it still is.jerry
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
To all moderators, Please read the quote by Ted Davis in comment #113 on this thread and hopefully start a new thread based on his views. I think it is only proper that we thoroughly discuss his ideas here in a more direct way.jerry
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Ted Davis has been trying to respond directly to some of the comments here, and it seems his posts are getting caught up in the spam filter through no one's fault. He asked me to pass this along to the list. The Blockquote below is directly from Ted:
I have tried to post a few comments on this thread, which carries my name at the top, but except for my initial comment they have not shown up here. I am unable to say why not, and the moderators are also perplexed. Therefore, I have asked David to send in my comments on my behalf. My thanks to him for this favor. I have been asked to respond to Bill’s question about my views on ID as science, and I address that directly in the essays linked in my comment above. Thus far, no one (as far as I can see) has brought up any discussion points from my essays, so I assume they have not been read. If you want to know what I think -- if you want evidence that I have not ignored Bill’s question, whether or not I have answered it to his (or anyone else’s) satisfaction -- then please do go back and look at those links. There you will find that I do discuss some of the science issues, and I also explain my own view that ID is not (yet) an alternative theory to evolution. The rationale for my view is not easily explained in a few hundred words, and I won’t review it all here, but if you read my essay “Intelligent Design on Trial,” which contains observations and reflections on the Dover trial, you will find my views on this outlined clearly. I invite conversation about my views, once they are adequately understood. Any takers? Please note that what I invite is conversation, not the questioning of one’s honesty or motives. In a recent post, Jerry writes: “What drives most people here is a distaste for dishonesty and what we see is rampant dishonesty in the educational, scientific, legal and media establishments in the US and world in general on the topic of evolution. So that is our worldview and if you disagree with it then you are on the dishonest side of the view.” I agree with Jerry, that not everyone is always honest about aspects of this topic. But his final sentence does seem to lay out an ultimatum -- either someone agrees with him, or they are dishonest. I don’t know whether or not Jerry agrees with the views I have expressed in the essays linked above. But I trust that honest disagreement will be recognized for what it is.
dopderbeck
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
What drives most people here is a distaste for dishonesty and what we see is rampant dishonesty in the educational, scientific, legal and media establishments in the US and world in general on the topic of evolution. Well said, Jerry. And take note that the same ones who throw a fit in defense of undirected evolution are the same ones who throw a fit about a host other causes where science is improperly used or invoked.tribune7
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Jerry -- I'm sorry, I just don't have time to keep this up. I think you're misunderstanding much of what I was trying to say. I'll just have to let what I've already tried to say speak for itself.dopderbeck
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
dopderbeck, This will probably be the last comment on this thread since it disappeared off the listing but I really think you are wrong on a lot of things, You said: "It is also, and centrally about ideology and worldviews. My experience is that the dispute between TE and ID usually comes down not primarily to science but to theology, ideology, and worldviews, " What ideology, theology and worldviews? You have to be kidding. There is none here of any of them that I have seen. Oh yes, there are plenty of people here that have them and they frequently express them but the range of views is so widespread that to say there is worldview or theology here is ludicrous. Upholding any specific worldview would chase 2/3 of the commenters away. The answer is there is none common to us. That is not quite true. What drives most people here is a distaste for dishonesty and what we see is rampant dishonesty in the educational, scientific, legal and media establishments in the US and world in general on the topic of evolution. So that is our worldview and if you disagree with it then you are on the dishonest side of the view. You might want to ask why this dishonesty exists but that does not seem to bother you. I ask you how you expect to come here and find a theological basis for our interests when there are YECs, other Protestant denominations, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslim and agnostics who contribute here. It is ludicrous to expect that ID is theological driven. There are even some who don't believe in God. The one thing in common is that good science should be followed. Many of us will then feel vindicated when that is done and then on some other playground worldviews can be debated but not here. The one thing your comments have done here is explain why TE's hold their worldview and it is clear it has nothing to do with science. When science interferes with your worldview, science loses. So I lump the YEC's, Darwinists and TE's into the same group, namely, that their science conclusions on evolution are driven by ideology and not science. If you disagree with this particular assessment, then try keeping all your comments on other threads strictly to science and see where it leads. I am sure if you want to have theological discussions with particular people that can be arranged somewhere else or maybe on some threads here but it will not be of interest to many who comment here. By the way I am not attacking your worldview. It is not mine but I recognize I am in a minority on a lot of things. I just making some observations on it and how it relates to this site and science in generaljerry
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Jerry said: ID is not a religious doctrine of the YEC’s but science based and if you want to establish a dialogue it has to be based on science and not religion. Discussions of religion will just lead to fractious conversations. I guess the best response to this is the text at the top of this blog:
Uncommon Descent holds that... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.
It seems clear to me, then, that ID, or at least this blog, is not "only" about science. It is also, and centrally about ideology and worldviews. my experience is that the dispute between TE and ID usually comes down not primarily to science but to theology, ideology, and worldviews, as Davis noted in the original post Dembski quoted. Do you really think the public debate about ID would be so intense if it wasn't all about worldviews? Isn't one of the main points ID advocates make that their ideas are taboo in mainstream science because of worldview barriers? Appropos to this thread, my experience is that many ID advocates think TE's are "caving in" to the materialistic worldview -- indeed, I've seen that argument made directly by someone involved in this blog on the ASA list. I believe that criticism is largely wrong and unfair, whatever else might be said about the relative merits of TE and ID. There is no way to address that criticism other than by discussing questions of theology, ideology and worldviews. In particular, this thread has been about Ted Davis and theistic evolution. Given that theistic evolution is "theistic," I'm at a loss to understand why it would be improper to discuss the "theology" behind it. You can't understand and criticize "theistic" evolution if you're unwilling to delve a bit into theology. Finally, I don't see anywhere in this thread where I've been pushed to talk about biology but have avoided it. Perhaps you're thinking of another thread relating particularly to common descent. You are quite right, however, that my understanding of biology is relatively shallow compared to many others here(though I don't think I'm a complete rube there either). Yet, it is curious that you would attack me for focusing on some things I know at least a little bit about -- theology and worldviews -- when they are centrally implicated in the discussion of something like "theistic" evolution.dopderbeck
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
dopderbeck, This is just an observation. You said "is now becoming about how bad I am for stating plainly what I think. Unfortunate." I am not so sure about the "plainly." It is obvious you steer the conversation to religion at every turn when the premise of the site is about science. Yes, many of those here are here for religious reasons but the primary basis for their participation is stated on the top right hand side of every page "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted." This is a site about science and when religion is introduced as bluntly as you have done, it can cause some shock waves. People have been fighting over minutiae in religion for several thousand years so what is the likelihood of you finding anything different here if you seek to discuss it. This is a place where all sorts of religious viewpoints are held by the contributors but rarely discussed because it is not supposed to be a factor. Science is a more objective discipline so we try to limit most of the discussions to that. The debates are over the logic of what data reveals. When pushed to science you just espouse platitudes and seem to have no real desire to discuss the implications of your comments. So I guess that you really do not understand the biology more than a superficial manner or feel threatened by a discussion of it. My guess is that you espouse the TE point of view solely for religious reasons and not for scientific reasons. This is a discussion we have had here many, many times and always leads to the same answers. In other words Darwin is espoused by TE's not because it is good science but because it is consistent with a religious view point. We can understand that since it has come up as I said many times before. The problem is that we tend to follow where the science leads and never feel it threatens our religious beliefs. You seem to think ID is not necessarily bad science because it is making false conclusions from the data but it is must be bad science because it doesn't sync up with your religious views. So like the YEC, the Darwinists the TE's seem to be driven by an ideology first and science must conform to it. As I said this is just an observation and is based on how you responded to each time you were given a chance to discuss the science and how you characterized ID as pursuing materialist science. Let me make my own observation from someone who believed in Darwin till a few years ago. Even though I had a science background, my beliefs were based on ignorance because I never examined the science. Of those in our society who do believe in Darwin the huge majority do not understand the science and then choose an atheist understanding of the world. Just look at your colleagues in the Northeast. It is what Darwin chose. So by pushing Darwinism, the net result is not only bad science but an atheistic interpretation as the zeitgeist. You do not have to agree with us but go back to your TE havens and let them know the truth. ID is not a religious doctrine of the YEC's but science based and if you want to establish a dialogue it has to be based on science and not religion. Discussions of religion will just lead to fractious conversations.jerry
April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
Apollos said: So are there no good reasons to doubt common descent other than a fundamentalist, literalist, reading of the Bible? No, I never said that. All I said (or meant to say) is that it seems to me that, in discussions about ID, people who reject common descent out of hand often do so because of particular presuppositions about the Bible. I'm not suggesting people who hold those presuppositions are all rubes or morons, nor am I suggesting such presuppositions are the only basis for questioning common descent. But I think the basic observation, which I make after a couple of years of being engaged in these discussions, is a fair one. Apollos also said: I’m just curious: is this an endorsement of Gould’s NOMA? No. I think Gould's NOMA is facile. My view is that there is one magesterium -- "all Truth is God's Truth." When I say "we who are Christians should assert design on [theological] grounds rather than caving in to the positivist epistemology of materialistic science," I'm suggesting that the supposed magesterium of positivism is an imposter. Theological presuppositions, including a belief in God, are properly basic (per Plantinga) and do not need to be justified by prior empirical evidence. So, I think my position couldn't be further from Gould's NOMA. I wish I had time to respond to each of your characterizations of TE, but all I can suggest here is that I think TE is as much misunderstood and maligned among some ID advocates as ID is misunderstood and maligned among some TE advocates, and that there are many strong points of contact between the two that both sides often seem to want to ignore. The links Ted Davis dropped into his post supply some of that context. Let me also note this about the ASA, which is some information that I think Ted wanted to pass along to this thread but which may be hung up in moderation: the ASA membership includes folks such as Bill Dembski and Steve Meyer. The next ASA President is Walter Bradley, who co-authored an early ID book. Recently elected ASA “Fellows” include TE geneticist Francis Collins, but also Princeton physicist Bob Kaita (a fellow of TDI), Biola physicist and ID advocate John Bloom, and Pitt physicist and ID advocate David Snoke. Ted Davis currentlyis an ASA officer. As I said somewhere earlier in this thread, some TE's, particularly some vocal folks on the ASA email list, take unfair swipes at ID sometimes. The organization as a whole, however, is much more diverse than that, and there is often a healty exhange of ideas among TE's and ID's -- again, see the most recent issue of the ASA's Perspectives journal.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Sigh. Oh dear. It's truly amazing what people (mis)perceive. Michaels7, I'm sorry I've offended you so. Truly. If you knew me and understood the intent of my writing, I hope you wouldn't judge me that way. I'm not sure why referring to stuff I may have read or learned along the way is taken the way you take it. Goodness knows I try to be a learner more than a teacher. I don't recall ever once suggesting I am more educated than anyone else or any such thing. I simply tried to start my arguments forcefully but respectfully. Scordova, I'm equally sorry that you want to attack me in the third person rather than engage in a conversation. I did not know you were a PCA member, true, but I did in fact assume at first you were speaking from some kind of Reformed perspective. But then, based on some of your additional statements, I thought perhaps I was wrong and that in fact you weren't writing from a Reformed perspective. So I tried to flesh out my point with a variety of perspectives, all of which I think are similar at the end of the day -- that's all. As to the reference to the Pelagian heresy, perhaps that statement was too rhetorically strong. The point is that your position on natural theology, it seems to me, is either not well-defined or too extreme. Am I permitted to suggest that without being accused of all sorts of dishonesty and arrogance and such? What is most amazing to me is that this thread, which started out as a a personal attack on a fine and established Christian scholar, is now becoming about how bad I am for stating plainly what I think. Unfortunate.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
dopderbeck said:
Note that I am not saying all ID folks are YECs, but the discussion, in my experience, continually gets muddled by objections to common descent on that basis (which I sense is where some of the objections to common descent are coming from here).
So are there no good reasons to doubt common descent other than a fundamentalist, literalist, reading of the Bible? Would it be accurate to say that this is your way of dismissing "common dissent" as a strictly biblically motivated enterprise? (I note your use of the word "some" in reference to the CD objections, but perhaps you are intending to be generous). Yet would I be correct in assuming that your perspective on dissent from Darwinism in general, not limited to CD objections, is biblically motivated, and in the arena of YEC? dopderbeck said:
“Design” is, and should be, an inherently theological concept, and we who are Christians should assert design on those grounds rather than caving in to the positivist epistemology of materialistic science.
I'm just curious: is this an endorsement of Gould's NOMA? dopderbeck said:
Moreover, I do not believe there is any adequate concept of “design” apart from the distinctives of the Christian God. Anything less is an unhealthy compromise.
I have an arrowhead that I found more than ten years ago. It is obviously designed. I have no idea who fashioned it (other than a general idea). It could just be a rock, except that it has an obvious application and conforms to a recognizable pattern. I infer design. This is indeed an adequate notion of design distinct and separate from the Christian God. No need to leap to a broader philosophical notion of "who designed the designer." We could possibly get into a drawn out discussion about whether the design of the arrowhead is metaphysical. I would put forth that it is indeed metaphysical, not necessarily supernatural. Must we broach theology to determine design in this case? Might there be a way of ascribing design in a scientific manner to non-biological objects and systems? And if so, why would the rules for biological systems be so different? I confess to an inordinate number of questions in my post; and I recognize that you are attempting to single-handedly field questions/objections from a number of commenters. In a later post you said:
I hope it is clear that if there is a failure of dialog concerning the TE position (or at least what I understand the TE position to be), it isn’t on my part.
This may indeed be the case, but your insistence to define ID on TE's terms is on you. Perhaps there doesn't exist the similarity between the two that you insist. After all, I posit several distinct differences: -- TE begins with the philosophical declaration/assumption of the existence of God and His role in creation -- TE conforms to methodological naturalism -- TE accepts common descent as necessity -- TE accepts RM+NS as the naturalistic creative mechanism behind evolution Beyond those, there is TE's attitude toward ID, which is unlikely to be acceptable to ID proponents in the foreseeable future: -- There can be no non-theological concept of a designer -- ID does damage to the notion of a Christian God -- ID is strictly politically and religiously motivated -- ID doesn't warrant scientific debate -- ID is a "god of the gaps" explanation for observations in nature I'll accept that you may take issue with some of my assertions.Apollos
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Scordova said: Really? Given you suggested I was Arminian Doperdeck wrote: Go back and actually read what I said. I made no such suggestion
You wrote:
Perhaps you are a Catholic and won’t agree with some aspects of Reformed soteriology. .... Or, perhaps you take an Arminian position.
In fact, you seemed quite sure I did not subscribe to Reformed Theology:
All I can say here is that I think your position contradicts scripture and traditional Christian theology, and leans towards the Pelagian heresy. My view of the ordro salutis is essentially the classically Reformed view: no one can be saved absent the hearing of the Gospel and the illumination and effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. The ordo salutis does not begin with human knowledge or understanding. It begins with God’s election and His gracious regeneration of a person’s mind and heart.
Let the reader understand what sort thing dopderbeck insinuated toward me. The Pelagian heresy says [according to the Catholic Encylopedia]:
The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace.
It's pointless to even project such positions onto me as I am neither a Roman Catholic nor Arminian nor Pelagian. Now Doperdeck could of course admit he didn't know I was a PCA member professing the major tenets of Westminster's Reformed theology If he did know that, then that raises the question as to why he would speculate I was a Catholic or Arminian or that my position leans toward the Pelagian heresy.scordova
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
D. Operdeck, I salute your education. Forgive my brevity of adoration. You lecture people here not as a teacher, but as a dog trainer w/o treats. Your impatience is telling, especially with those in Christ less educated than you. You express your displeasure of those "in Jesus". Let your behavior speak for itself and stop the lecture. I'm sure we can learn from you, but we are not your students. We're all imperfect beings here, many learning not just about ID, but of humbleness in Y'shua. The comments above yours including Dembski's were measured. Some valid points were made. The only line of text you consider "unlike Christ" was Davis "mentoring" PvM. Then you take a wide swing at all here. Some posters here may be quick tempered and inconsiderate at times. But as a lawyer and someone claiming love, your lack of integrity in wordsmithing is horrendously clumsy, or cunningly sharp as a wolf's fangs in ripping apart an arguments flesh, while leaving the heart still pumping. I still see the heart of the questions unanswered. I have not made up my mind fully yet. But I notice you appear to look down your nose at others with 1) less education, 2) more aggressive in their causes - like abortion. Dembski's post asked clear questions in summary. And he pointed out the fallacy of ID as reactionary to Dawkins. Valid comments pointed out the weak argument as well. He posted the entire note for all to see Ted was fair in areas. I did not personally judge Davis as a person. He may be the most sincere, kind Christian like Jimmy Carter, but his discerning abilities just as flawed in regards to ID. I give you Churchill or Chamberlain. Who was the true peacemaker? I've read your comments here in the past and on your own site. I am amazed how you attack those of less education, but immensely important value to the Lord's work. You might look at the degreed log in your own eye. As we all must, just some to lessor degrees than others. You set yourself up as a great discerner of all thoughts Christ and all thoughts of us here. And I notice of all thoughts of all others you comment on at your site. Maybe we all, you, me should read the Sermon on the Mount again, because I fail to see how your intellectual discourse and projection of your thoughts onto others are any more worthy than those of the Pharisee pronounced onto sinners that Christ took in. Remember, it took 3 1/2 years of fulltime morning/night discipleship by our Lord Himself to educate the original followers. And even then, it was not until Pentacost that the Holy Spirit fully enveloped them. We all think much of ourselves don't we, including it appears - you. Patience and love is welcome on all sides not just for ID proponents, but for Ted and yourself in evaluating ID and those like me who intuitively are attracted to the base reality of our complex being. Might Ted answer the questions posed by Dembski? Maybe there are many who read here; besides commenters, that are learning much more than you realize? Learning not just biology, evolution, complexity, but in the art of debate and rhetorical devices to defend their beliefs. Many here do learn from good examples, few as they are in your eyes. Last I read of Christ, He was more patient with the poorly educated and lost than those of ivory towered temples. But then, who am I to lecture you? I'll not pretend to be near most on this site, nor near you in such verbal fencing, but certainly I have myself learned forms in comparison that equips me in future Conversations where one must know how to parry, riposte or reprise. In this case, I think your Salute was a good start, but your lunge was far to deep and unbalanced. You ignore Davis's ballestra lunge at Dembski's blog or equally ineffectual lunge at ID. Then you respond to Dembski's yielding parry by your own reprise to the blog as whole, yet again committing the original move of your friend in arms. Thus leaving yourself short of the original target, just like Davis. That of the questions at hand regarding ID. Whether myself or others behave any better or worse than PT is not important to the eventual outcome of the Bout between ID and Materialistic theories in biology or cosmology. Whether Davis, Dembski, or yourself are fantastic representations of Christ love is not a measure of ID's scientific future either. The questions remain at the end of the day.... "... has ID identified fundamental conceptual flaws and evidential lacunae in the conventional materialistic understanding of biological origins?" "...and is its appeal to intelligence conceptually sound and empirically supported?" If Ted Davis has addressed these questions fully, then please point them out to us. They should make for great discussion here. If you think that you might per chance, per charity, per love, grace us more with your presence. I wonder, how do you think Paul survived in Pergamon? Or among the Grecian and Roman gods? Thicker skin, allows us all with more vigor to advance.Michaels7
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Scordova said: Given you attribute thelogical ideas to me whcih I don’t maintain, it’s understandable you think I’m confused. You should understand my theologcial position before you begin criticizing it. Given that it should now be clear that I wasn't attributing to you a position you don't hold, and that I was quite clear in summarizing what I believe the Reformed position on natural theology and epistemology to be, perhaps you can explain why you believe the following statements of yours in post #42 are consistent with the Reformed tradition:
Design theory independent of the scriputres is important even to people who believe Christ is the Principal Intelligent Designer of life.
And
the theology-free approach of ID will actually confirm theological ideas inspired by Romans 1:20 and John 10:38, namely, the physical universe evidences major truths which transcend world views.
Both of these statements seem to me to be outside the Reformed view of epistemology, natural theology, revelation, illumination, and the noetic effects of sin.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
The relevant post, BTW, is number 53. There, Scordova said: If being a Christian was pre-requisite to believing in Christ, then none one could become a Christian. And I responded as follows:
Obviously, but that is not the Reformed position. The proper way to state it is that no one can become a Christian through the exercise of unregenerate reason. No one can reason his or her way to faith. Reason becomes enlightened to the truth of the Gospel only through the gift of faith and the quickening of the Holy Spirit.
Only after first summarizing the Reformed position did I tie in the Catholic and Arminian positions. I then concluded with the following:
However you slice it, the mainstream of Christian thought has never accorded reason priority over faith with respect to conversion or to epistemology generally. I would argue that the rationalist strain of American Evangelicalism is an anomalous phenomona that owes more to Descartes than to Augustine, Jesus or Moses. And the interesting thing is that the rationalist strain of American Evangelicalism — exemplified by the “Biola School,” the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, and the Evangelical Philosophical Society — supplies a substantial part of the intellectual and apologetic firepower for the strong ID program. I have become convinced that it’s impossible to separate the strong ID program from rationalist Evangelicalism. Despite protests to the contrary, they are hand in glove.
I hope it is clear that if there is a failure of dialogue concerning the TE position (or at least what I understand the TE position to be), it isn't on my part. If after reading through all my posts here in context you are still interested in discussing theological perspectives on the TE position, let me know what is unclear and I'll do my best to clarify.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Scordova said: Really? Given you suggested I was Arminian Go back and actually read what I said. I made no such suggestion; I summarized a variety of positions, Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, and suggested that whichever you might hold, the result is the same. I don't understand how you can suggest I'm the one backing away from fair dialogue here. Lutepisc said: I urge you to give dialog a chance.... So now that you know more about his theological heritage (which doesn’t seem too far removed from your own), how about engaging him on his own theological terms? Again, I would urge you to give dialogue a chance, and to go back and read what I actually wrote. I started with the Reformed tradition and Barth. To show that the points I was making weren't a quirk of the Reformed tradition, I demonstrated how Catholic and Arminian views on natural theolgy and reason in many ways converge. I made no assumptions about Scordova's theological views and presented a broad and fair survey of my position from a variety of theological traditions. The only responses I've gotten so far are ones which suggest that dialogue is only welcomed if it is a one-way street.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
dopderbeck, I urge you to give dialog a chance. Yes, based on scordova's handle, I would also assume that he is Catholic. Nevertheless, I believe a dialog between TEs and IDs would be very helpful and timely. So now that you know more about his theological heritage (which doesn’t seem too far removed from your own), how about engaging him on his own theological terms? You seem sophisticated theologically, and I certainly would look forward to such a dialog (if not in this venue, then in some other).Lutepisc
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply