It would seem that the professor might be more in agreement with more Eastern Christian thinking, at least in its “theory”. Although God and his creation are ontologically distinct, God participates with it more fully than he would in Western Christian thinking. Almost a kind of Panentheism, if you like, yet perfectly in consilience with the Creed.

I would guess that ID might find better acceptance within Eastern Christian thinking simply because of the “closeness” of God’s acting within creation to the evidence for design itself.

Professor Dyson would appear to acknowledge supreme intelligence beyond creation. That in itself is so far beyond ND that he needs to be careful not to be totally marginalized or ignored.

If I have it right, a practicing Christian (in Eastern Christian thinking) would be more viable than a believing Christian — mere belief being rather fickle, changeable, or volatile. So if that’s the case, it might not matter so much what the professor really believes.

That he accepts ID as entirely compatible with science is a huge step, IMO.

I found the source for Dyson’s quote! Unfortunately, the quote does leaves one wondering what Dyson really believes:

Science & Religion: No Ends in Sight By Freeman Dyson

I am myself a Christian, a member of a community that preserves an ancient heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own fashion. But I find Polkinghorne’s theology altogether too narrow for my taste. I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension. When I listen to Polkinghorne describing the afterlife, I think of God answering Job out of the whirlwind, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?… Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding…. Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” God’s answer to Job is all the theology I need. As a scientist, I live in a universe of overwhelming size and mystery. The mysteries of life and language, good and evil, chance and necessity, and of our own existence as conscious beings in an impersonal cosmos are even greater than the mysteries of physics and astronomy. Behind the mysteries that we can name, there are deeper mysteries that we have not even begun to explore.

“disappearing loss”

Maybe the “loss” fell between the cracks!

Sorry.

What anti-IDists try to do is to either re-define science to only include “natural” processes, as if intelligent causes are non-natural, or try to tie ID to the supernatural (they just don’t realize that even their position requires something beyond nature). They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science. Either that or they try to hold ID to some other arbitrary rules of science, never thinking that the reigning paradigm has no chance of meeting those same standards.

However that tactic is of no relevance:

In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the “teach the controversy” model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy. page xxv of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

Serious points. Well worth reflecting on.

GEM of TKI

Life in its earliest stages was little removed from ordinary chemistry. We can at least imagine life originating by ordinary processes which chemists know how to calculate. [He said, using his imagination.]
…
The argument from design…was at the heart of the battle between creationists and evolutionists in nineteenth-century biology. The evolutionists won the battle. Random genetic variations plus Darwinian selection were shown to be sufficient causes of biological evolution. [He said, credulously.]
…
Now comes the argument from design. There is evidence from peculiar features of the laws of nature that the universe as a whole is hospitable to the growth of mind. The argument here is merely an extension of the Anthropic Principle up to a universal scale. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in the existence of…a mental component of the universe… [He said, justifiably.]

Which really IS a breath of fresh air! That such a well known, accomplished scientist can have his own worldview is wonderful, IMO. Ninety-something percent go along with the herd.

Surely the continuing, and timeless question “Who do you say that I am?” implies an continuing imperative to seek the truth. So asking questions, and a healthy dose of skepticism are viable ideals, I would think

I had hoped the professor would also have commented on freedom/devotion, possibly leading to ideas he might have concerning “purpose”. In answer to another questioner he replied…

“If it turns out that the universe is populated with many intelligent forms of life, then we must accept the probability that we are minor players on the cosmic stage and that others will define its purpose. If it turns out that we are alone in the universe, then the responsibility for defining purpose is ours. In either case, we have plenty of work to do.”

I’m afraid the “plenty of work” will be fighting for intellectual freedom.

Post-normal reaction to anything against prevailing winds of wishful thinking is to stifle it, ignore it, deny it, or outlaw it. There was a day when preposterous statements like…

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

would be cause for laughter and ridicule. Not so today: data are of lesser and lesser importance, truth sacrifices itself to ideology. The proponents are dead serious: conclusions first, then premises to match.

The enemies of ID and sensible science are not arguments or data or individual opponents; the real enemy is the quickly disappearing loss of intellectual freedom.

Man this so reminds me of folks like Dawkins and PZ.

I am just pointing out that he evidently has his own specific worldview position, and we shoudl read his remarks in that light.

GEM of TKI