Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Predictability of Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?

Essentially, ToE predicts nothing. It explains history after the fact which is a whole lot different than predicting something before it happens. Of what value is a theory with no predictive power? Why do we bother teaching our children a valueless theory of history that more often than not is disbelieved and causes so much strife? Just the facts, ma’am, please.

All life on earth is related through common structures such as the genetic code. That’s a fact. How the relations were established is not a matter of fact but a matter of speculation. Leave the speculation out of primary school. There are more facts surrounding biology than we possibly have time to teach in primary education. That is what we should be teaching. Just the facts, please.

Comments
Me: "But let’s not let philosophical presuppositions dictate the conclusions we’re able to draw from the data." dopderbeck (126): "philosophical presuppositions always dictate conclusions. Even the proposition J makes here involves many presuppositions, not the least of which include the ability to make theory-neutral observations, to describe data in a theory-netural way, and to draw theory-neutral conclusions." First, I said nothing about making observations, nor describing data in theory-neutral ways. Scientific observations are, of course, typically made with the goal of either supporting or refuting some particular hypotheses or theory. (Although nothing really demands this. Theories can come after observation, as sometimes occurs, typically when the observation is sufficiently out-of-the-ordinary.) What I did say is that particular conclusions should not be prohibited because they either support or refute a particular theory. For example, the theory of relativity requires that light be bent (so to speak) by the sun and other massive objects. During the eclipse in 1919, light from distant stars was indeed observed to be bent by the sun. If astronomers had refused to accept Einstein's theory because they believed that light just had to travel in perfectly straight lines, then this would be allowing a philosophical presupposition to dictate the conclusion that they were willing to draw. What you wrote, "The development of life isn’t 'miraculous' in the sense that we should expect visible divine interventions in natural history," seemed to imply that you would refuse to conclude that a miracle or miracles had happened in natural history, even if there were no known better explanation.j
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
dopderback: Here, I think ID does make some ontological propositions: that “information” has some sort of ontological status. I think a TE perspective might be more likely to view information as not ontologically separate from matter, and therefore the “loading” isn’t really so much “loading” as it is the mind and will of God. I think you've hit the nail on the head here. But before I say something about the ontological status of "information", I want to address something you said earlier on in the thread about TE's concerns about the claims of ID. I, personally, don't think that ID can ever "prove" God's existence. As I've reflected on what is known--and, more importantly, on what may be known in the future--in the realm of genetics/taxonomy and such, I think what we'll see are "jumps" between what "was" and what later on "came to be". My sense is is that no matter how much comes to be known about regulatory heirarchies and such that are "encoded" in DNA, no matter how much is found out, e.g., between Neanderthals and humans, that all we'll be left with is a kind of "before and after" pictures. Then we're left with mechanisms of change. The ID thesis might--along the lines of "front-loading" and Davison's theory--predict that realignments of DNA have taken place and can be documented in these "before and after" pictures, but, nonetheless, the precise mechanism--a mechanism that we can presume was guided by God himself--is a "natural" process by definition. And the fact is is that God cannot be directly observed via nature. So, where does that leave us? In the end, I think those who want to believe will believe; and those who don't want to believe won't believe--which is precisely how God wants it to be. But in all of this ID is being treated as though it is a theological project rather than a scientific one. What if, indeed, life is "designed" and not simply the "unraveling" of chemical processes (the "ultimate" front-loading), then it behooves scientists to ask different kinds of questions. In experimenting with genomes, the question shouldn't be asked, "How did this genome "change" into this other genome?"--as if natural, stochastic interactions could have brought what we see about--rather the question should be, "What principle is at work changing genome A into genome B?". These aren't the same question. One question looks for its answer in chance processes, while the other is searching for genomic principles regarding genomic change. With a different search, different techniques will be applied. Enought said about all this for right now. Switching back to the original notion: i.e., "information" as an ontological category, I am more and more of the opinion that, indeed, "information" does need to be looked at as a ontic category in and of itself. I'm sort of stuck as to how to define it, or describe it. But information does have this characteristic: it is purposeful. Anytime you're dealing with information, it has, built into itself, some kind of purpose, either inherently, or via your own intervention, or both. Design detection basically, then, boils down to the detection of purpose, or information. Based on what you've written earlier, I guess you would say that TE's think that this "information/purpose" was present from the beginning--but I think this is a Deist position, not a Christian one. I see God as intervening in an on-going way. I'm leaving off here for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I'm running short of time. But along the lines of my last statement regarding God's on-going action in life, let me pose this hypothetical: A man is inspired to work with lepers in a leper colony in Hawaii. He works there for years without ever getting leprosy himself. Now the question is this: Did God miraculously preserve him from the contagion? And the answer is itself a question: How could we possibly ever know? In other words, if God is acting or not acting, we can't tell the difference. So, joining this to what I wrote up above, if God does at times change genomes, how would anybody know?PaV
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Jehu: I don’t see how even “evo-devo” could explain this one. Presumably that mouse didn’t need those genes for development because it developed just fine without them. I didn't mean to imply that "evo-devo" explains this, I was rather pointing out that the "rats are jumping ship". I suppose it would be rather easy, though, to say that these conserved sequences have some regulatory/developmental function which is, for the time being, beyond investigation in the lab. If you say, "Well, if these sequences are involved in regulation or development", then why didn't the mice suffer", well, I suppose you can say that somewhere else on the genome, "back-up" copies must exist. You see, "just-so" stories are so easy to fashion--and always rely on that which is yet to be demonstrated. Then when the current "just-so" story is demonstrated as being wrong, then you just come up with a new one. What do they call it? 'Moving the goalposts.'PaV
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
A few folks have alluded or pointed to the idea of front loading. Front loading is an interesting proposition at the margins of the TE / ID distinction. ID begins to look very much like TE here, depending on where the "loading" happens. I think one of the main distinctions, and a very interesting one, is how we view "information" when we talk about front loading. Here, I think ID does make some ontological propositions: that "information" has some sort of ontological status. I think a TE perspective might be more likely to view information as not ontologically separate from matter, and therefore the "loading" isn't really so much "loading" as it is the mind and will of God. J said: But let’s not let philosophical presuppositions dictate the conclusions we’re able to draw from the data. This is one of my main issues: philosophical presuppositions always dictate conclusions. The question is, which presuppositions do you hold? Even the proposition J makes here involves many presuppositions, not the least of which include the ability to make theory-neutral observations, to describe data in a theory-netural way, and to draw theory-neutral conclusions. Jehu says: Another failed Darwinian prediction. Perhaps, and other failed predictions have been mentioned in this thread. This gets back to my criticism of the original post. On the one hand we want to say ToE "predicts nothing." On the other hand, we want to say things like (from Jehu, not the original post) Darwinism predicts that there is a correlation between the evolutionary rate and the generation time of an organism .... It's more accurate to say that ToE makes numerous predictions, and then to discuss the success of those predictions compared to other models.dopderbeck
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
I thought I would add this comment to this thread. Another failed Darwinian prediction. Darwinism predicts that there is a correlation between the evolutionary rate and the generation time of an organism because organisms that reproduce faster have more opportunities to mutate and organims that reproduce slower have fewer opportunities. In fact, there is no correleation between the mutations and generation time.
Therefore, small rate differences seem to exist among lineages, and clearly there are no systematic relationships between the evolutionary rate and generation length. This means that the generation length and physiological differences among diverse groups do not influence the neutral substitution rates significantly, and the evolutionary time is the principal factor dictating the accumulation of neutral mutations.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/022629899v1.pdfJehu
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
"When the complexity-specificity criterion fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause played a role in its formation? No, we cannot. To determine that something is not designed, this criterion is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for it."
The Design Revolution, page 94
The problem is not that explaining some object as the result of a necessitarian process precludes design, but that it can never decisively implicate design.
The Design Revolution, page 140
As I've pointed out to Miller on more than one occasion, this criticism is misconceived. The proper question is not how often or at what places a designing intelligence intervenes but rather at what points do signs of intelligence first become evident. Intelligent design therefore makes an epistemological rather than ontological point. To understand the difference, imagine a computer program that outputs alphanumeric characters on a computer screen. The program runs for a long time and throughout that time outputs what look like random characters. Then abruptly the output changes and the program outputs the most sublime poetry. Now, at what point did a designing intelligence intervene in the output of the program? Clearly, this question misses the mark because the program is deterministic and simply outputs whatever the program dictates.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
The upshot of this conclusion - that anything could have been purposely arranged - is that we cannot know that something has not been designed. The scientific problem then becomes, how do we confidently detect design?
Darwin's Black Box page 194 Charlie
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
DOpderbeck, ID seems to accept here that science is, in fact, the ultimate arbiter of truth. ID is not making a statement about the ultimate truth of objects for which design cannot be detected. ID is offering a set of tools, the explanatory filter, study of IC and CSI, which are applicable in some instances and not in others. Like all tools, they are limited in their scope and applicability. If we have sufficient background knowledge and the artifact in question is accessible to the EF, for instance, then a claim for design can be made. If there is nothing about your rock that makes it amenable to the tools of a design theorist then they have nothing to say about it. Attributing the cause of an artifact or event to necessity or chance is not to make ontological statement, but an epistemological one - it's a statement about our lack of justification in saying otherwise.Charlie
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
dopderbeck (105): "TE’s have a number of problems with this “'stronger' claim of ID: "It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that some parts are guided and sustained by God and others aren’t." Actually, ID doesn't require that some parts be guided and others not guided. For example, imagine a situation in which there is a billiards table with 15 (or whatever number of) balls apparently randomly scattered on it. You are able to view only the motion of the billiard balls (perhaps they include a pigment that shows up only in a certain kind of light, and you are viewing the scene through special goggles. Whatever.) Now, if you saw all the billiard balls sunk on a single shot, you could legitimately conclude that the cue ball was set in motion in accordance with the designs of an intelligence. (And possibly that the other billiard balls were set up in some way.) The improbability would be just too great for what you had observed to have occurred by chance. Any yet all the motion after the cue shot would have occurred strictly under the influence of the laws of physics. Now imagine this happening not once, but numerous times. (Maybe not every time, but nonetheless again and again.) "...a scenario where God “interrupts” the normal orderliness of nature to fiddle with DNA or rapidly invent new structures, for them [TE's], is contrary to a proper doctrine of creation." Again, ID does not require an interruption of the normal functioning of nature.
It is, for instance, a logical possibility that the design of the bacterial flagellum was front-loaded into the universe at the big bang and subsequently expressed itself in the course of natural history as a miniature motor-driven propeller on the back of the E. coli bacterium. (William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 184. (In the chapter titled, "Miracles and Counterfactual Substitution")
"Miracles, however, by definition are rare and typically are provided for specific purposes in salvation history. The development of life isn’t 'miraculous' in the sense that we should expect visible divine interventions in natural history." OK. Maybe. But let's not let philosophical presuppositions dictate the conclusions we're able to draw from the data.j
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Patrick: dopderbeck, what do you think about pragmatic naturalism? I'm most familiar with pragmatism in the context of legal philosophy. As I understand pragmatic naturalism, it asserts that the value of a truth claim is measured by its pratical utility, and that human beings are only able to make truth claims about natural things to which they have access based on human perception. A proponent of this view generally would be Dewey. In law, Oliver Wendell Homles is a key proponent. This is a view I'd have to reject. As a Christian, I don't believe human beings have no access to the supernatural. In particular, I believe God reveals Himself to us in His written word, in Christ, and to a lesser degree in creation, and that He created us in His image such that we are able to some extent to receive His self-revelation (though to dig into this fully would also require a discussion of the noetic effects of sin and the extent and role of grace in ameliorating those effects). Further, I'd have to reject the epistemic proposition that the value of a truth claim is primarily pragmatic. This is based on my Christian ontology -- in particular, God's existence, and the existence of His creation, is independent of its pragmatic value to human beings.dopderbeck
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Patrick, it may help to define pragmatic naturalism. There is no Wikipedia entry for that, so you could write one, perhaps.Tom Moore
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
This article is nothing but retaliation for evolutionist assertions that ID makes no predictions and is therefore a theory of no scientific value. Well, let's have a runoff prediction contest between the ID and evolution, of where things will be on Earth when humans have doubled their time on Earth. ID will have a big advantage in that it will only try to predict 6000 yrs in the future. We can check back in either 6000 yr or 2 Myr, take your pick.Tom Moore
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
dopderbeck, what do you think about pragmatic naturalism? On a side note, I've asked many TE's and Darwinists this same question and so far the answer I've received is silence (this is online; most people I ask in person don't know what I'm talking about). Is it because they consider pragmatic naturalism so flawed it's not worth discussing? Or is it that admitting it has merit would require underlining the flaws in their arguments? I don't know which it is, but I'd like to hear what one of you guys think of it.Patrick
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Because a thunderstorm isn’t a self-replicating machine driven by digital program codes. But a thunderstorm is a highly complex dynamical system regulated by physical laws. Why is this so much different than an organism that is regulated by DNA -- which DNA is a molecule ultimately regulated by the same physical laws as the thunderstorm? I understand that DNA perhaps encodes more, and more specific, information than a thunderstorm, but I'm not sure why this difference in degree matters. There's a metaphysical question underlying this about where the "information" in the thunderstorm and DNA come from as well. When we use the metaphor of code for DNA, we naturally think of a computer programmer inputting the information. Stretching this metaphor too far into nature seems to grant information an ontological, almost Platonic status. Why not view "information" in nature instead as an emergent property of matter, rather than something externally programmed into matter?dopderbeck
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
It has to do with false negatives. I have an epistemological problem with the idea of false negatives. I assert that a rock is designed, and you say I can't substantiate that assertion, but this is only a false negative. But I assert that there is rational justification for my claim; it is, so to speak, an epistemtically justified positive. The question is, what counts as epistemic justification or warrant for a belief. It seems that the criteria you give for justifying a claim of design buys into the nearly positivist epistemology of modern science. ID seems to accept here that science is, in fact, the ultimate arbiter of truth. IMHO, the discussion needs to be moved back a few places, to the more basic question of justification and warrant. Again, I like Clouser here, and also Plantinga, as well as Milbank (with respect to social sciences).dopderbeck
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
The reason it makes no such admission is due to philosophical naturalism taking over where methodological naturalism stops. ...That’s the demarcation problem. I don't think we're terribly far apart on this point, though now I'm taking off the TE hat. Most of the TE's I've spoken with would deny that MN collapses into PN. They see MN as consistent with their theology of creation and with the proper role of science. Personally, I think MN does often collapse into PN. I like some of the things folks like Roy Clouser have to say here.dopderbeck
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
dopderbeck Your mention of a demarcation problem has merit but I'd say to you the problem is in separating philosophical naturalism from methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is faith based. Absent proof that all things can be explained by physical laws the philosophical naturalist takes it as a matter of faith that all things can be explained by natural law. Methodological naturalism is the basis of science. It attempts to explain things by physical laws and often fails. Science has so far failed to explain how life originated by physical law. It should admit that failure and keep alive the possibility that everything might not be explainable by physical law. But it makes no such admission. The reason it makes no such admission is due to philosophical naturalism taking over where methodological naturalism stops. A false pretense is made that it is a fact that all things can be explained by natural law. Thus the valid question of whether some unexplained things might not be explainable by methodological naturalism is squelched. Science, you see, in the mind of the philosophical naturalist ultimately has all the answers. The buck stops there. If science can't explain something it's only because science hasn't progressed far enough to explain it. That's the demarcation problem.DaveScot
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
DOpderbeck, I see Dave has answered your objection regarding the false dichotomy of designed/not designed. I really think something like this should be on a FAQ page. Here is my version of such an answer to two of these questions: 1) Does ID require a "tinkerer" designer? and 2) If ID identifies instances of design does it say that the rest of the universe was not designed? These answers are rather long, and are mostly in the form of quotes from Dembski and Behe. You may not want to go through them, but I provide them as a resource to answer these questions. ps. The page is not really a blog, just a temporary spot for those reading here to access the quotes. They would be much too long to give as comments here.Charlie
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
dopderbeck I think it’s fair to say that most prominent ID theoriest make specific claims about the ability to identify design by contrast to nature in general. This is the biggest stumbling block for TEs. I see the problem now. ID accomdates this. It has to do with false negatives. ID doesn't say that some things are not designed. It readily admits false negatives. Just because something doesn't meet the criteria for a positive design inference, it doesn't follow that it wasn't designed. Some things that are designed may simply fail to meet the very strict criteria for making a positive inference. The reason for such strict standards is to eliminate false positives. So if we pick up a rock and try to make a design inference and cannot it doesn't mean the rock wasn't designed. It only means we can't look at it and find any sure evidence that it was designed. It may very well still be designed. The TE asks why the development of life should be any different than the thunderstorm in this regard. Because a thunderstorm isn't a self-replicating machine driven by digital program codes. We know how thunderstorms can form from natural law without any specific intelligent guidance. There may be intelligent guidance but we can't infer that by ID criteria. It's another case of false negatives which ID readily admits. ID can't positively detect non-design. It detects design in very limited cases. The machinery inside a living cell is blueprinted and driven by digital codes strung out along the DNA molecule. We can't make any demonstration as to how such a thing could self-assemble without intelligent guidance. In all our experience the only way digital program codes driving complex factory-like operations can demonstrably be assembled requires telicity. In other words, where there's a code there's a coder. the political nature of the ID leadership Politics and legal maneuvering are being used against us. The weight of the scientific evidence for chance evolution isn't enough to convince a majority of the electorate that it is true. A lie that ID is nothing but religion was told over and over to no avail. The majority of the electorate still isn't convinced. So they then employ judicial fiat to entangle ID with religion. The plain fact of the matter is they know chance evoluton is a dead duck if ID gets introduced into K-12 science class. If you tell a kid the truth, that the inner workings of all living cells are extraordinarly complex machines driven by digital program codes that make the complexity and programs in their personal computers look simple in comparison, and tell them it's never been demonstrated how this complexity could have come about by unguided self-assembly anymore than their personal computer could have fallen together by accident, they're going to walk away believing that life was designed. Where's the religion in that? Thus the science establishment resorts to any and all means possible to stop that message from being delivered. The weight of their evidence is sadly lacking. They know it, we know it, and we want our kids to know it before they're brainwashed by scientific authority into thinking they're proven accidents of nature instead of special creations.DaveScot
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
PaV,
Following up on your remarks about the significance of the experiment, I can’t help but think that this experiment had no small part in evolutionists like Allen MacNeil moving away from the NDE/Modern Synthesis, and invoking/embracing “evo-devo”
I don't see how even "evo-devo" could explain this one. Presumably that mouse didn't need those genes for development because it developed just fine without them. And these non-coding elements are so highly conserved, they are the same between the platypus and the human. I am enjoying just contemplating this issue. So far I haven't been able to come up with a "just-so" story to explain it no matter how improbable.Jehu
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
That should be: No, I’m saying there are tested methods of discriminating between design and undesigned things.tribune7
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Tims What you are implying is the supernatural. No, I'm saying you there are tested methods of discriminating between design and undesigned things. So if I were to take some e.coli and place it in a controlled environment how could I then claim that the mechanism for the mutations that arise over time is caused by a designer without bringing on the supernatural? I would think those tested methods would show the mutations to be undesigned. And, I would have lost my bet because you seem to have missed the dig in my last answer.tribune7
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Dopderbeck - Wow, you said it very clearly. Excellent post.Tims
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Well my understanding is that he is looking at the formation of prebiotic purines and pyrimidines that could have been formed in the accepted primordial earth environment. It is pretty clear. He is not taking steps to form micellae just looking at the formation of the backbones. The point is that even though his first experiment occured 50 years ago with the spark and soup does not mean that there has been no work since to follow up. Primordial Chemistry is a small field since it has no practical application for modern chemical applications. I would further view other papers published by primordial chemists before making claims against their research.Tims
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Tims I'm not discrediting Stanley's work. I'm discrediting your understanding of it. Why don't you summarize for me exactly what you think Stanley accomplished.DaveScot
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
ID only disputes the chance nature of evolution. TE’s believe God somehow guided evolution, right? Dave, over the past year I've had this very same discussion with a number of Christian TE's on the ASA forum, and have read a bunch of their literature (Keith Miller's Perspectives on an Evolving Creation; Collins' book; parts of Peters- Hewitt; and assorted articles), as well as other related theologies of faith and science (stuff by Torrance, Polkinghorne, and McGrath). I don't think all TE's are homogenous on this, but generally, here are the things I've gleaned from that conversation and study: **TE's -- at least those who don't lean towards open theism -- agree with ID's that the universe and life didn't evolve in an "undirected" way. God was and is sovereign over the course of evolution. This is, or should be, a substantial point of agreement. It sets both TE's and ID's in direct opposition to the PZ Meyers and Dawkinses of the world. **Many TE's, though not all, will accept at least some probabilistic arguments as evidence that the development of the universe was not "unguided." Collins, for example, relies heavily on the anthropic principle as support for, though not proof of, a theistic worldview. Others think arguments like Simon Conway Morris' concerning convergent evolution are compelling. Some TE's are loathe to rely even on these types of probabilistic arguments. All the TE's I've conversed with would say that, at best, things like the anthropic principle and convergent evolution are consistent with a theistic worldview, but are not scientific proof of theism. **TE's, however, perceive ID as saying more than this. In the TE perception, ID says that the development of life was guided and that we can scientifically prove the "footprints" of that guidance specifically by contrast to the "ordinary" operation of natural laws. I hear you saying something less specific about ID right now. As I read Dembski and Behe, though, it seems to me that the TE's more detailed reading of what ID claims is correct. Perhaps this is one of those problems with the elasticty of definitions -- like our problem with defining "evolution" -- but I think it's fair to say that most prominent ID theoriest make specific claims about the ability to identify design by contrast to nature in general. This is the biggest stumbling block for TEs. **TE's have a number of problems with this "stronger" claim of ID: -- Theologically, TE's see this "stronger" version of ID as a sort of gnostic restatement of Paley's natural theology. TE's (again, excluding open theists) say that all of creation is created, guided and sustained by God. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that some parts are guided and sustained by God and others aren't. -- Even more particularly, my observation is that TE's I've conversed with and read often come from a Barthian and/or Reformed perspective, informed as well by Pascal, that eschews natural theology generally. In this view, the expectation is that God will not be transparent in nature, except in the general Psalm 19 sense that nature displays God's glory in its beauty, orderliness, etc. Thus, a scenario where God "interrupts" the normal orderliness of nature to fiddle with DNA or rapidly invent new structures, for them, is contrary to a proper doctrine of creation. -- Most of the TE's I've conversed with acknowledge the reality of miracles. Miracles, however, by definition are rare and typically are provided for specific purposes in salvation history. The development of life isn't "miraculous" in the sense that we should expect visible divine interventions in natural history. (It is, of course, "miraculous" in the sense that creation is contingent -- entirely dependent on God's will. Many TE's refer to Thomas Torrance here). --- An example here might be a thunderstorm. I am struck by the beauty and power of the storm, and it leads me to give glory to God for creating such a marvelous thing. I believe the storm occurred fully within God's sovereignty, in a created order sustained by God's power. Yet, I can also describe the storm with reference only to natural laws. My doctrine of creation does not lead me to expect that God's "fingerprints" would be evident in the storm apart from it's "ordinary" beauty -- in fact, it leads me to expect exactly the opposite. The TE asks why the development of life should be any different than the thunderstorm in this regard. I have to say that as I've studied the theological questions, given that I too come from a Reformed perspective, I find them pretty compelling. Most TE's also have other problems with the strong version of ID, including empirical and demarcation problems. In addition, most of the TE's with whom I've conversed are put off by what they perceive as the political nature of the ID leadership in the U.S. But you were asking about theological issues, so I'll stop with this very short nutshell.dopderbeck
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
tribune7 - I did think on it quite a bit before writing it. What you are implying is the supernatural. So if I were to take some e.coli and place it in a controlled environment how could I then claim that the mechanism for the mutations that arise over time is caused by a designer without bringing on the supernatural? If that is the case then I do not see why it would be an issue for ID to accept the scientific community's thoughts on it being taught in a theological arena. I know you will say something akin to microevolution already has the presets to allow for change. DaveScot - So you are discrediting Stanley Miller's works? A couple of links to share: http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999NewAR..43..223P Considering that Primordial Chemistry is still discovering things I would not discredit it yet.Tims
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
dopderbeck For the life of me I can't think of a reason why theistic evolutionists would be opposed in principle to ID. ID only disputes the chance nature of evolution. TE's believe God somehow guided evolution, right? God didn't leave it up to chance? All ID says is that God's guidance can be seen in the result because the patterns created are far too improbable for random chance to have assembled. There had to have been guidance somehow. Unless your religion demands that God has somehow gone to great pains to make creation look like an accident then I don't see what the problem is. Even so that wouldn't make much sense as the religion would also have to deny that God has produced miracles that were witnessed by people and recorded. Take the parting of the Red Sea for an example. People have imagined ways this could have occured by natural forces but the sheer improbability of those natural forces coming together at the perfect time for Moses to lead his people across the dry seabed is nothing short of miraculous. It's that kind of improbability which ID attempts to identify and show that the improbability is beyond the bounds of reasonable belief and there almost certainly had to be an intelligence guiding these forces to overcome the improbability. That's all ID is about - improbability that borders on impossibility. Intelligence routinely overcomes improbabilities by guiding forces in a way that otherwise never would have happened. Take this writing as an example. If my cat was walking over the keyboard you'd see a more or less random assortment of characters. The odds of those random characters making up a meaningful message in the english language following all sorts of rules of language and grammar borders on the impossible. But an intelligence can routinely overcome randomness to make a purposeful assembly. Now consider the molecular machinery of life. Vast numbers molecules assembled to create machinery so complex we're only beginning to understand how it works. ID's position is that this assemblage is so improbable that it borders on impossible without an intelligence that somehow ordered it. The only people who should object to ID on principle are those that for some reason are committed to an idea that human intelligence is the only intelligence in the universe and no other intelligence with the means, motive, and opportunity to somehow guide the creation of life on earth ever existed. There's no evidence to support this. There is only negative evidence in that we haven't found any other intelligence in the universe other than ourselves. But I put to you we HAVE found inferential evidence of another intelligence in the complex patterns found in nature. We don't know who or how the intelligence operated to produce these patterns but the patterns by themselves stand out as stark evidence that an intelligence of some kind created them. Now perhaps you can explain to me how any of this somehow opposes any of your personal religious convictions.DaveScot
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
ps, oops, meant Prof. your link connecting to your blog needs correcting. http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html pss. interesting coments on Information which have been discussed here at length.Michaels7
December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
Dr. Operdeck, Riddle me this... Not paper, nor car, nor rocket machine, some signals I send are completely unseen, my tiny world explodes on time, so others may contribute to this new rhyme. My cost is less than a penny, in fact my sacrifice is free. Patent lawyers now make plenty, in fact they fight over me. Who woulda thunk it, who woulda seen, who woulda spent so much money to change what I've been. What am I?Michaels7
December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Think on it, how would you suppose that a designer would manipulate the design over time? How would you be able to test that? Tim, think on that and see if you can tell me why I find that uproariously ironic!! Betcha can!tribune7
December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply