Theistic Evolutionists Close Ranks — Let the Bloodletting Begin!

I think that this is really a symptom of ID’s success. When what Dawkin’s calls in Expelled “an opposing doctrine”, begins to gain some traction and validity it the public’s eyes it becomes no longer good enough to just ignore it politically. Now the evo-materialists feel like they are loosing ground and that is why they are mounting this offensive. Miller has made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that he views ID as the down fall of science. This is ridiculous and a flat out lie. ID opens up questions about THE most fundamental of all questions; that of origins. If IDists make a claim it allows those in opposition to counter it. This brings greater depth, interest and understanding to science. ID has brought evidential scientifically supported conceptual challenges to the science of origins and it’s current mainstream proclamation. The truth about ID, thanks to the internet and the growing body of scientific literature on it, is now experiencing greater exposure than ever. Personally I agree that the issue of fundamentalist religious interpretation IS a political and philosophical mountain that ID is going to have to climb- but once people realize that ID can be stripped down from just a fundamentalist interpretation and that it is actually perfectly compatible with science and philosophy - then human nature will take over and people will seek the freedom to learn, believe and respect a valid scientific theory regardless of how it may rub a few people. The media may never going to stop calling ID “creationism” but people will continue to cut through the BS as more and more literature accumulates on the subject. Darwinists have force fed their philosophy to the public for years. Now it’s time for some long over due balance. Let’s allow the pendulum to swing back to academic freedom. And Bill while I think at the end of the day that this is more of a battle of ideas than of politics - I do totally agree that it is a battle that must and will continue to be fought. To the other side this is all merely a battle about politics money religion and power- but for us actually fighting for change we know what it’s really about; the freedom to express valid and cogent ideas without fear of persecution.

Didn’t Ken Miller make some noise about Dawkins at one point, only to have PZ Myers start screaming about how Miller was a creationist - resulting in an email exchange and Myers never bringing Miller up again, and Miller never going after Dawkins again?

To be honest, though I’m probably best classified as a TE, I have serious misgivings about Ken Miller. He insists he’s not a TE anyway, but something doesn’ts it well with me when it comes to how he approaches the issue.

I love it when theistic evolutionists stop the presses to announce how “devout” they are as Christians, prompting us to withhold our suspicions that their real devotion is to Darwin. We are not supposed to notice, I guess, that true fidelity to Christianity would include, at a minimum, faith in the Biblical teaching that God’s handiwork has been made manifest in his creation.

As Psalm 19 instructs us, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” And, of course we read in Romans 1:20, that the invisible things are clearly seen “being understood by the things that are visible.”

Now I would expect even a mainstream Christian to take these passages seriously, but a “devout” Christian ought to be downright passionate about them. According to St. Paul, design is a self-evident truth, so much so, that a Christian, agnostic, cynic, or anyone else who questions it is “without excuse.” What can we say, then, of those who, in fact, don’t believe it at all and yet publicize their Christianity for strategic advantage.

Clearly, they want their God and their Darwin too; but they want a quiet God and a loud Darwin. To believers they say, “Hey, I am a Christian.” leaving the convenient impression they believe in a purposeful, mindful creator. To the academy they say, “Don’t worry, I am first and foremost a Darwinist, so I really believe in a purposeless, mindless process that relegates God to footnote status. I you don’t believe me, just watch how I slander and smear the ID people.”

Not only does their duplicity betray the public trust, it retards scientific progress. More to the point, these disingenuous hacks harm the ID movement 100 times more than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens could ever hope to. There is just enough sugar in their confection to make young Christians swallow the poison whole and join the ranks of the anti-ID militants. Although I am a Catholic Christian myself, I do, nevertheless, find the radical atheists easier to bear. Spare me from the soul selling, split-the-difference, have-it-both-ways Christians.

I am really comforted that TEs are so explicitly against us. I would be seriously worried of the opposite.

Why? Indeed, I am not interested in the religious aspects of the debate. But, trying to be consistent with my usual attitude, that is to stick to the scientific (and some time philosophical) aspects of the ID issue, I stay convinced that TEs have the worst point of view on those apects: one that is gross, inconsistent, scientifically, logically and philosophically flawed.

I have no doubt: I prefer a Dawkins to a Miller. So, if fight has to be, it’s OK for me, but be it a fight on scientific and intellectual grounds. I think there are already too many religious fights to add a new one to the lot.

H’mm:

This thread opens up some significant issues, on the — now too often unnecessarily contentious — interaction between philosophy, science, and theistic worldviews, and on their implications for society.

I think a pause to look at Newton’s General Scholium to that most significant of all scientific works, Principia, will be enlightening on where all this started. That is , with men who saw God’s handiwork and beauty in the heavens and in the mathematics that captured the order of the cosmos — an order that they saw as self-evidently a product of mind. (Well do I recall a recent thread in which someone tried to insinuate that such an inference to mind is nonsense, and thread to dismiss the significance of Newton as a result; only to show himself the live donkey kicking a safely dead Lion. Newton’s insight on the mathematical elegance of creation is indeed a key point, and our recent observations on just how finely tuned th mathematics and parameters of the cosmos are underscores his point.)

What Darwinism did was to create and/or popularise the perception that one could dispense with the most obvious inference on the source of that elegant order; for once one injected enough time into the equation, the intermixing of chance and selection filtering would allow life to spontaneously form, then develop the body-plan level diversity we see today and in the fossil record.

So, the heavens were emptied of Wonder. At least in the minds of those who were enthralled by Darwin’s vision.

Then, from the 1930s on, along came information science.

Suddenly, we had a quantitative approach to understanding the significance of high contingency used to hold and transmit functional information. And, we had an obvious reason to see that there is an inherent probabilistic resources issue in the notion that chance + necessity could jointly spontaneously originate cosmos and life then diversity and finally intelligence. Namely, we saw that the cosmos was astonishingly finely-tuned, and that life was equally astonishingly finely tuned and intricately — sometimes, irreducibly — complex. So much so that the search resources of the observed cosmos are soon exhausted: it is EASY to get to and surpass 500 - 1,000 bits of information storage capacity. And we know that that cosmos could not plausibly exceed 10^150 quantum states across its entire credible lifespan.

So, chance + necessity end in search resource exhaustion on the gamut of our observed cosmos, thence probabilistic absurdity.

But equally, we have a directly observed case in point of a third force: intelligence. For we are intelligent agents.

Such agents use UNDERSTANDING and CREATIVITY to routinely innovate FSCI well beyond the Dembski type bound. So, we have a probabilistic resource challenged, institutionalised proposed mechanism, vs a mechanism that can account for what we see but is counter to a major, institutionally dominant worldview. (I also of course join many others to note that there is no credible evolutionary materialist account of the origin and trustworthiness of the mind, i.e there is a second self-referential absurdity here.)

Our effective alternatives are: [A] an unobserved vastly wider cosmos as a whole — one sufficiently quasi-infinite to swamp the odds, or [B] inference to intelligence. The second has the key advantage that we know what intelligence can do, and we observe just such intelligence in action all the time. In short the latter is empirically anchored, factually adequate, coherent and elegantly powerful as an explanation. Indeed, it is classically scientific!

Why, then, is it so stoutly resisted, to the point of rage, slander and unjustified career-busting a la Expelled?

Because much is at stake, and but little of that has to do with real science. And, everything to do with the insistence of evolutionary materialism that its visions and agendas for our lives, institutions and communities must prevail in the names of progress, modernity and liberation from any notion that — however remotely — supports the idea that we are stewards of Creation accountable before our Creator.

Some very serious soul-searching is in order for the evo mat advocates and their fellow travellers such as Mr Miller.

GEM of TKI

William Dembski said,

Ken Miller’s most recent book, just out, makes this point in the subtitle — Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

That’s not the first Darwinist book with “the Battle for America’s Soul” in the title. The full title of what was supposed to be the definitive book about the Dover case, Darwinist Edward Humes’ book, is “Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul.”

From the title, you’d think that Darwin is the Messiah and that until his ideas about evolution gained acceptance, our souls were in jeopardy.

Darwinism is another Church of Latter-Day Saints, even more so than Mormonism. Darwinists shamelessly use “I love Darwin” knick-knacks, celebrate Darwin’s birthday, etc., but so far as I know Mormons don’t do the same for Joseph Smith. I don’t think that being descended from monkeys is anything to be ashamed of, but nor do I think it is cause for celebration.

I was astonished that the Kitzmiller v. Dover plaintiffs had the chutzpah to choose a theistic evolutionist, Ken Miller, as their lead expert witness in what was supposed to be a lawsuit seeking enforcement of the so-called “separation of church and state”! Theistic evolutionists are mascots who are trotted out to show that evolution theory is not just motivated by atheism.

Darwinists tout Judge John E. Jones III as a “churchgoing Christian.” In the conclusion section of his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, he arrogantly told people what their religious beliefs are supposed to be:

Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

The Clergy Letter implies that questioning evolution theory is blasphemous or sacrilegious:

We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

Ironically, though the Jewish religion originated the Genesis story of creation, the Anti-Defamation League is one of the most fanatical opponents of criticisms of Darwinism — see

http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....d-adl.html

Theistic evolutionists hold that Darwinian evolution is God’s way of bringing about the diversity of life on earth.

Obviously, they can’t show how so this is a matter of faith. Just one more plank in the case that Darwinian evolution, unlike ID, is a religion, and one more example of how irony rules in the era of the internet.

tribune7 (7)

I think the irony might be in your comment, as theistic evolutionists would say that it’s the God bit that can’t be shown scientifically, not the evolution bit…

theistic evolutionists would say that it’s the God bit that can’t be shown scientifically, not the evolution bit…

Sooooooooo. Do it

You get a Nobel prize if you can.

And, while you are demonstrating Darwinian evolution — that all life came from a single ancestor solely via natural selection and random changes to the genome — scientifically, explain how ID refers to God.

If Ken Miller calls himself an “orthodox” Christian, I assume that means he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. If so, his thinking is rather bizarre: “I believe God can create a human out of a decaying body, but to suggest he had anything to do with the sudden appearence of all the animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion is unthinkable.” If not, this is just more deceit, another attempt to “say anything to calm the barbarians”.

??? I don’t get it – I come to this site looking for ideas and answers, not to promote anything.

My comment was about the position of theistic evolutionists.

Again, I’m not in the business of trying to explain how ID refers to God. But I can quote how Dr Dembski thinks it does (see above): -

“They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And they need to be defeated.”

Were it not for the aberrant intermingling of metaphysics and physics (meaning the study of the phenomena), particularly among Darwinists, that of confusing ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism (to use Plantinga’s terms), this “battle” might not exist. Science has always portrayed itself as rational, logical, and unbiased. I think this might be the greatest lie of the 20th century.

Having read Collins and listened to Miller’s diatribes, these men may be committed Christians in belief, but are deeply affected by the confusion of Plantinga’s distinctions. The difference in tone, in manner, and in rational discourse held by ID advocates, though no less rigorous, is glaring evidence that some false orthodoxy is being outdone. I am grateful for this restraint, difficult as it might be.

Frankly, it embarrasses me as a Christian that this ignominious noise comes out of a so-called follower of Christ.

Dr Dembski, I appreciate this is your blog and you’re perfectly entitled to remove my comments. It would disappoint me, and I can assure you that I come in good faith. For what it is worth, I’m a ‘don’t know’ with regard to ID vs evolution. Of course, this may already condemn me here, lol.

My question is, if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian?

Duncan I don’t get it – I come to this site looking for ideas and answers,

If you are looking for answers you should ask questions not express strong opinions based on incorrect assumptions i.e. I think the irony might be in your comment, as theistic evolutionists would say that it’s the God bit that can’t be shown scientifically, not the evolution bit…

But if you want answers –hopefully you lurk for a bit — I’ll give you these:

1. Darwinian evolution has not been demonstrated.

2. ID does not refer to God.

My question is, if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian?

Having and/or expressing doubts about the methodology behind ID would not make you a bad Christian.

Knowingly ascribing false motives to the proponents of ID or knowingly claiming ID is something it is not, however, would fall into the “bearing false witness” category.

Miller’s brand of Christianity (All mere appearance on the outside yet no real substance on the inside) reminds me of the religion of the the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Though they were definitely “orthodox”, devout and pious, to the public around them, As far as Jesus was concerned they had missed the boat big time as far as God was concerned,

Take this following eye opening passage:

Matthew 23:27

“How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of people’s bones and every kind of impurity.

John the baptist did not have a high opinion of religious hypocrites either:

Matthew 3:7

But when John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them, “You children of serpents! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

I have a very hard time seeing how Miller’s head doesn’t explode. How in the world is it possible to believe in the miracles of God (especially the resurrection), yet at the same time, believe that totally natural processes created all life on earth. I would be in a nut house if I held such inconsistent thinking with sincerity.

ba77:“John the baptist did not have a high opinion of religious hypocrites either:

But when John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them, “You children of serpents! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”

Seems like even John the Baptist was affirming the truth of evolution.

HA HA Junkyard

duncan 15
Because - Christ is (Christianity IS) Creation with a purpose from a “Personal God” having Mind, “Intelligence” “Information” NOT random chance without such Purpose. Pleas ask yourself if you have even come to terms with the basics since your questions begs an answer. LOL x LOL

junkyard 19
Please explain - “Seems like even John the Baptist was affirming the truth of evolution.”

My question is: if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian?

Duncan,

You are asking a legitimate question:

1. a person who believes that all living things are the result of natural selection of random mutations can be a good Christian, just not a very logical one. There is so much evidence, overwhelming evidence, that an intelligence was involved in the origin and development of life, that the only real reason for believing the contrary is a philosophical bias which excludes this possibility a priori. There is very little direct evidence for the miracles of the Bible, so it seems illogical to accept these and “a priori” (this is the important point) exclude the possibility that God has also played a role in natural history. (By the way, I do believe in the resurrection, but I don’t claim this is based on scientific evidence; I find some of the other miracles reported in the Bible almost impossible to believe, not because I a priori exclude the possibility of miracles, but some of them just don’t sound credible.)

2. I don’t agree that ID has nothing to do with God. ID proponents argue that there is evidence in living things (especially at the microscopic level) of “design”, but the evidence doesn’t tell us who this designer is. This is true, we cannot be sure, based on what we see through the microscope, that the designer was not Dawkin’s “more evolved” alien from another planet. However, the sudden appearence of time, space, matter and energy in the Big Bang, and the fine tuning of the laws of physics was clearly not the work of Dawkin’s alien, so it seems likely the same intelligence that designed the laws of physics was involved in the origin and development of life. Thus I don’t have a problem identifying the designer with a supernatural creater, a “God” by most definitions. However, if I start claiming the scientific evidence points toward the Christian God and away from Allah, then you will know I am confusing science and religion.

alan:

An attempt at humor, or irony.

But possibly we could read into John’s statement, who knows. He also says regarding Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.” There is an awful lot of likening of people to animals in the Bible. Then in Revelation you have angels showing up with heads of cows and birds and so forth.

And in Genesis the serpent is condemned to crawl on his belly, implying he didn’t previously, and also that things could have possibly been different from an evolutionary standpoint.

Then again maybe all of this is completely specious.

—–duncan: “My question is, if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian?”

Dr. Dembski has not made that claim, as he magnanismously gives militant TE’s the benefit of the doubt.

I, however, am not as charitable as he. For my part, not believing in the SCIENCE of intelligent design does not necessarily make one a bad Chrisitan. However, denying the Bible’s teaching about the EVIDENCE of design and slandering your ID opponents with lies is inconsistent with the Christian faith.

Larry said:

“Darwinism is another Church of Latter-Day Saints, even more so than Mormonism.”

What is this relating to? And, by the way, do you know what you are talking about?

Junkyard wrote:

“But possibly we could read into John’s statement, who knows. He also says regarding Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.” There is an awful lot of likening of people to animals in the Bible. Then in Revelation you have angels showing up with heads of cows and birds and so forth.”

You crack me up! Between your two possibilities, I’ll take this has humor, rather than irony. (BTW, it really did make me laugh; I’m not being sarcastic.)

You know, it’s funny how the TE’s like to throw the “methodological naturalism” or “god-of-the-gaps” arguments to “refute ID” when, if those same (flawed) arguments were applied to the account of Christ’s resurrection, would completely destroy Christianity.

These guys are simply “useful idiots.”

Saint and Sinner:
Shark’s virgin birth stuns scientists

“The discovery that sharks can reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis now changes this paradigm, leaving mammals as the only major vertebrate (backboned creatures) group where this form of reproduction has not been seen.”

junkyard 31 -
I’ll accept that as significant to this discussion if you can show me some prophecy predicting this particular offspring, time and place of birth and any unusual-supernatural characteristics this progeny has to its peers. Perhaps we will see a decline in shark attacks on humans - GLORIOUS - we might even find a rather wet manuscript of the Chronicles of SHARK within a few billion years give or take hey.

Eric Anderson said,

Larry said:

“Darwinism is another Church of Latter-Day Saints, even more so than Mormonism.”

What is this relating to? And, by the way, do you know what you are talking about?

Well, I thought that “latter-day saints” was a reference to the founders of the Mormon church, e.g., Joseph Smith. I just looked up “latter-day saints” and it appears that the term may refer to members of the church. So maybe I didn’t know what I was talking about — it happens to people.

Anyway, my analogy still holds. I just don’t see Mormons worshipping Smith in the same way that Darwinists worship Darwin, e.g., I don’t see “I love Smith” knick-knacks.

What’s our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH.
…
*Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

The general mood among my associates is that the Darwinists haven’t even begun to see what will be unleased on them. They’ve only been sparring with scouting parties so far, they haven’t seen yet a truly organized and large-scale assault yet, but they will…

The main reason a large-scale organized assult will happen is that the Darwinists no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of information. Their tactics of censorship and intimidation don’t work like they used to….

Cheap access to the interenet and video and teleconferencing cannot be policed by them. These communication mediums are not yet even being fully leveraged, but they will be, and as they are leveraged the great Berlin Wall will collapse.

Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID.

JunkyardTornado,

Of course I can’t prove to you that the Virgin Birth was a miracle. Still, until you see humans walking through walls and ascending into heaven, then you either have to accept the Gospels’ accounts as miraculous or dismiss them as fiction. Giving a naturalistic explanation won’t do.

Which brings me to the point which you missed. My point was not whether the Gospels were accurate. Rather, my point had to do with the damage TE’s can do to the Church (and many have already done). TE’s, if they were consistent with their argumentation, would dismiss all the miracles of the Bible as simple “gaps” in our understanding of the physical universe and become either theological liberals (more consistent) or simple atheists (fully consistent).

Cool Funny Off Topic Video

Signs Of Life:

http://www.godtube.com/view_vi.....7e8f8937f9

Saint and Sinner:

Your remarks about methodological naturalism destroying Christianity called to mind an idea I had that what if the Virgin Birth had a natural explanation. It doesn’t destroy my faith, personally.

(Gen 3:14) The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

[the latter verse is supposed to be prophetic of the virgin birth].

Larry wrote:

“Anyway, my analogy still holds. I just don’t see Mormons worshipping Smith in the same way that Darwinists worship Darwin, e.g., I don’t see “I love Smith” knick-knacks.”

OK, fair point.

I tend to be a radical middle Christian. Ready for spiritual and moral war but wanting peace, radically convinced of Christ and his words but always trying to avoid extremes.

“With devout believers like this, give me a good infidel any time.” Indeed, I could point to many muslims who have a better understanding of God and creation than Miller and cie. I could also point out many materialist Darwinists who see theistic evolution as an oxymoron - laughable and foolish.

Richard Lewontin- Harvard geneticist said,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubsantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

And from Steven Weinberg,

The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation.” – Steven Weinberg, NYT, 21nov06

Darwinism being the “greatest engine for atheism ever devised” hardly fits a Xian world-view.

Therefore, these Darwiniac Xians are seriously deluded.

Is Christ truly the descendant of apes? Or of a real literal Adam? Indeed, Christ is called “the last Adam”.

Seeing that Christ held a literal Adam and Eve, as well as did the apostles, I can never understand these mentally blind (inspite of being highly educated) Xians supporting the greatest engine of atheism ever devised.

It does not add up and will never add up.

A Xian, by very definition, must believe the gospels and the canonical writings of the apostles. These are the primary source of all we know of Christ and his life.

So where do these blind followers of the blind get off denying the very words that their faith is supposedly based on?

There is nothing in the words of Christ, the prophets or the apostles that remotely suggests a symbolic Adam or an Adam descending from something previous, something less, something merely animal.

It doesn’t ring true. That’s because it ain’t.

Borne: I submit that theistic evolution is self contradictory.

How does God USE random variation and natural selection? How can both God and nature do the selecting? If the variations are random, how can they produce a finished product that God would have in mind? If they produce the finished product that God had in mind, how can they be random?

Either an organism’s fate will be determined by the “unfolding” of an internal principle (directed evolution), in which case there is only one possible outcome, or its fate will be determined by random chance (Darwinian evolution), in which case there are many possible outcomes.

StephenB, I think you are right that there is potential self contradiction.

If there was an intended result, there must have been some guiding direction (whether direct intervention from time to time or a front-loading process that would lead to a known and intended outcome). But that kind of process doesn’t sound very Dariwinian — certainly not a process based on RM+NS.

The only way to get out of this intellectual conundrum is to take the view that there in fact was not an intended result, and that, therefore, whatever RM+NS produced was perfectly fine, thank you very much.

The problem with this view, at least for the theistic evolutionist is two-fold: (i) it doesn’t sound much like rational theism, certainly not any one that posits an active creator, which Ken Miller gives lip service to, and (ii) RM+NS is woefully inadequate to account for the creation.

Saint and Sinner,

A problem here is that you’re employing a term like ‘miracle’ without realizing that what constitutes a ‘miracle’ is itself debated even among orthodox Christians, and leads into a question of what constitutes ’supernatural’. What specific way would God have to accomplish the Virgin Birth (or any other miracle) for it to have truly been an act of God? Why couldn’t the virgin birth been have an event orchestrated far in advance through natural channels? Heck, what is the difference between a natural and a supernatural thing? Because the naturalists essentially take the tact that ‘Everything that truly exists is natural’.

I don’t think TEs are ’supporting the greatest engine for atheism ever devised’ - and I think regarding evolution (Not Darwinism, which I frankly consider to be a different thing at this point) as such an engine purely because some atheist it is unbelievably dangerous. What if an atheist said that Protestantism ‘Was the most important event in Western History as far as justifying and laying the groundwork for atheism goes’? Should we declare Protestantism an atheist tool and condemn it?

Do NOT let atheists dictate what you can and cannot believe, or what does or does not support atheism over theism. If you let them control the debate like that, they’ll pigeonhole you. And I remind everyone here that Dawkins and other atheists are on record as saying they think Young Earth Creationism is the only true option for any Christian. Do you honestly think it’s coincidental that said atheists also think YEC is the easiest view of Genesis for them to attack and disprove?

Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design?? Bill Dembski? Well, they do look a lot alike.

—–Eric Anderson: “The only way to get out of this intellectual conundrum (guided evolution=intended result; Darwinian evolution=unintended result) is to take the view that there in fact was not an intended result, and that, therefore, whatever RM+NS produced was perfectly fine, thank you very much.”

Exactly right. Under the circumstances, the Creator would simply have to live with the surprise result. Weight that against, the Bible’s account: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; …”

Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

In this mighty “war of culture,” affecting as it does the whole history of the World, and in which we may well deem it an honour to take part, no better ally that Anthropogeny can, it seems to me, be brought to the assistance of struggling truth. The history of evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. ~ Ernst Haeckel

StephenB,

I know you and I have locked horns on this in the past. But I have a question for you: What if a Theistic Evolutionist believes in evolution, in Common Descent, but rejects ‘random and unguided’. As in, God may have well foreseen and preplanned the entire development of life from its origin to its current state, and that humanity/intelligent life certainly was the a goal and intention of these processes. Is such a person a darwinist? A TE? An evolutionist? An IDer? A mix?

Is such a person a darwinist? A TE? An evolutionist? An IDer? A mix?

Such a person would be a Michael Behe.

scordova,

I’d agree. But that presents a dilemma to me: I accept evolution without problem. Common descent, fine as well. I don’t rule out the thought that there could have been some direct ‘act’ by or on behalf of God in that history, but I personally don’t think it’s lab demonstrable (And Behe, it seems, is open to that possibility as well.)

But it seems to me that I can call myself all of those things. I can be a darwinist because I accept so much of the science-sans-philosophy. I can be an evolutionist because I certainly accept evolution and common descent. I can be a TE because I believe these things are all guided by God. I can be an IDer because I believe design is an integral part of our natural history.

I don’t think I’m alone in this view. As I said, I do not like how Ken Miller approaches this subject, or Francisco Ayala. Collins has been soft on the subject, but more amenable in general as a result. And I think warring on TEs as a group, rather than focusing on particular advocates, would be a mistake.

But, I’m just one lone voice. I just wanted to see where I would be classified by people here. I do not mind being placed in Behe’s niche at all.

nullasalus: “I know you and I have locked horns on this in the past. But I have a question for you: What if a Theistic Evolutionist believes in evolution, in Common Descent, but rejects ‘random and unguided’. As in, God may have well foreseen and preplanned the entire development of life from its origin to its current state, and that humanity/intelligent life certainly was the a goal and intention of these processes. Is such a person a darwinist? A TE? An evolutionist? An IDer? A mix?

You have been a good sport about my relentless assault on TE’s, and I will not violate that spirit of friendliness and mutual respect. In any case, what you describe is not theistic evolution in the modern sense. Essentially, you are in the Behe camp.

A person who believes that God purposely and mindfully directed the process of evolution with a specific end in mind is simply a theist who believes in evolution. That sounds suspiciously like theistic evolution, but it isn’t. If the process is pre-planned, it is teleological, meaning that it “unfolds” with and end in mind—it has a goal—it goes through a “maturation” process guided by an internal principle. In the old days, this is what theistic evolution meant, because many who used the term were referring to Teilhard De Chardin, who proposed a teleologically driven form of evolution. Other theistic evolutionists of that era simply believed in a non-Teilhardian theistic evolution that was, nevertheless purposeful in its formulation. The design was real. It can either be set up in advance to do its own thing (unfold according to plan), or it can accomodate intervention at various times and places. Either way is compatible with ID.

Against this notion is the idea that no teleology is necessary, that an unguided, random process without any aim at all can produce and sustain life given enough time. Put another way, time and chance, as its advocates would have it, can make up for the lack of planning. This is Darwinism and it was originally conceived not as an explanation for Biblical creation but as alternative to it. Accordingly, it develops not according to an “internal principle,” which has an end in mind, but rather through “external adaptation,” which does not. It simply doesn’t know where it is going. By definition, it is unplanned. Under these circumstances, any notion of design is, as Darwin pointed out, an illusion. Today’s theistic evolutionists (most, not all) believe in this form of evolution except they say that God planned it. Well, you can immediately grasp the problem here. To say that God used a Darwinian process is to say that God planned an unplanned process. Remember, a Darwinian process is, by definition, unplanned. There are exceptions to this, but most TE’s are Christian Darwinists, which, as I hope I have shown, is a contradiction in terms.

So, if you believe in a purposeful, mindful evolution, you are not a theistic evolutionist, except in the historical sense. I salute you for that. I would rate attitudes about ID in four categories. [A] Design is illusory [B] Design is real, but undetectable [C] Design is real and detectable, [D] Design is real, detectable, and measurable.

Larry writes:

Anyway, my analogy still holds. I just don’t see Mormons worshipping Smith in the same way that Darwinists worship Darwin, e.g., I don’t see “I love Smith” knick-knacks.

True. But, then again, there is no such thing as special Darwinist underwear. So, it probably evens out in the end.

Poor theistic evolutionists, they want to be accepted as religious by the religious and as modern and scientific by the materialists. They are afraid that if they don’t appeal to the materialists that they will be shunned by them. So how to kill both birds with one stone? Claim to be religious but support evolution. In order to prove you aren’t an irrational religious nutcase you can’t just support evolution, no, who knows, you may be a closet creationist (equalivalent to a child molester by materialists because you do immense damage to children by denying them their Darwinian savior. Soyou have to prove you are one of them, you have to go out of your way to attack the creationist bogeymen to prove to materialist “society” that you really are “normal” and have accepted Darwin as your own personal savior even though you believe in God.

They hate ID because they feel rejection of evolution reflects badly on them. And after all, what they really care about is their prestige and the social connections they bring. They are either liars about their religious beliefs or they are sell outs.

JunkyardTornado,

“Your remarks about methodological naturalism destroying Christianity called to mind an idea I had that what if the Virgin Birth had a natural explanation. It doesn’t destroy my faith, personally.”

I understand. However, things like the resurrection cannot have a naturalistic explanation if Christianity is true for the simple fact that the reason given for Christ’s resurrection was his righteousness (Acts 2:24, Rom. 1:4).

Also, an ascension into heaven isn’t exactly natural either.

However, the same methodological naturalism that TE’s use to deflect ID arguments is the same methodological naturalism that atheists and skeptics use to argue against the historicity of the Gospels. “Since we should favor a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one (no matter how absurd the former is), the Gospels must be a-historical because they have supernatural content in them,” or so the saying goes.

I’ve heard it several times from atheists and skeptics, and it is the guiding presupposition of unbelieving “Bible scholars”.

Lastly, I apologize if I came across as a bit harsh. I’m simply used to debating the snarky (or so they think) militant atheists.

StephenB,

Thanks for the courtesy. That adds to my dilemma - which is essentially that this debate is fraught with all manner of confusing terms. The fact that I’m ‘historically a theistic evolutionist, but technically an IDer, even if I lean towards B’ highlights the problem for me.

I think there are many more people like me who would define as ‘theistic evolutionist’, or come vastly closer to that than, say, Francisco Ayala’s take (Miller I am not familiar enough with, but Ayala’s views on evolution honestly strike me as true snake oil. Especially in light of his recent change.)

I guess all I’d say further is, be wary of attacking TEs. I’m willing to bet a lot of them are like myself.

nullasalus,

First of all, I responded to the specific use of the Virgin Birth in my response to JunkyardTornado. I have no problem with the providence via secondary means. I’m a Calvinist, that’s how I believe that God brought about the entirety of history: through human choice.

However, there are certain things that cannot be naturalized: the Resurrection, for example.

“Do you honestly think it’s coincidental that said atheists also think YEC is the easiest view of Genesis for them to attack and disprove?”

First of all, YEC isn’t the easiest to disprove. It’s simply has more things to defend. Secondly, I take an Instrumentalist view of science. So, the dating methods, starlight, geology, etc. normally used as “evidence” for an old universe don’t phase me.

I could become a Biblical errantist, an open theist, deny the virgin birth, half the events told in the gospels, etc. all so that I would have to defend a “minimal” Christianity, but those positions aren’t what I’m convicted of.

Saint and Sinner,

“First of all, YEC isn’t the easiest to disprove. It’s simply has more things to defend.”

That’s beside the point for me. Atheists *believe* it’s the easiest to disprove. And coincidentally, many of them insist it’s the only view of Genesis to have. I’m suggesting that many of them insist on the latter owing to the former.

Again, what I’m illustrating is this: I think it is a tremendous mistake to regard evolution as verboten for religious believers just because some atheists crow about how the idea of evolution is a powerful force for atheism. It is, frankly, an intellectual trick.

nullasalus: I am sorry that these terms can be so elusive and confusing. Much of the chaos comes from the theistic evolutionists who have done so much dissembling. If the terms “evolution” and ” evolution” have become so fluid, it is because TE’s (and Darwinists) have made it a point to misuse those words for no reason other than to muddy the debate waters.

In fact, I have noticed that it is the ID advocates who work hard to nail down their own definitions and the Darwinists and TE’s who don’t. I don’t think that is an accident. Those who are on the losing side of an argument benefit from confusion while those on the winning side don’t.

I tried to make my case in as few words as possible, so you either find my arguments persuasive or you don’t. In either case, I don’t think you are a TE, so my criticisms are not directed at you. Granted, no one argues against the TE’s more fiercely than I do, but I have good reasons for it. My main quarrel is with the few big guns in academy who sustain the TE movement not the many seekers of truth who have fallen into that camp unaware of the deceptions that have been visited upon them. I am merciless with the former because of their duplicity, but as gentle as a lamb with the latter because of their innocence.

Francis Ayala is clearly part of the elitist problem that I describe. He misuses words, misrepresents arguments, and subordinates his faith to Darwinist ideology. Indeed, he accepts and even celebrates the incredibly unjust decision at the infamous Dover trial, agreeing that ID is little more than recycled Creation Science. I gather that you have spent enough time on this site to know how untrue that is.

Sorry, I meant that the terms “evolution” and “theistic evolution” have become muddled do to the dissembling of Darwinists and TEs.

Ken Miller is a classic con artist, who uses his “religious faith” to further his own purposes, both monetary and in terms of self-aggrandizement. In my opinion he is in the same category as the TV preachers who con people out of their hard-earned money with phoney promises. It was for such people that Jesus reserved His contempt.

Thanks, Gil. Too many people forget about what Jesus did or said. It is always good when someone speaks for him and can apply the label Pharisee to someone, even though they may have never met the person. Bravo.

nullasalus and StephenB:

I will try to give, in short, my brief categorization about wht is TE and whta is not, in the hope it can help debate. With a gross, but probably useful, simplification, we can have:

1) There is no design. Only the laws of physics as we know them are real. They can perfectly explain the generation and evolution of living beings without any problem, if not about the details. The laws themselves can appear finely tuned for life, but that can be explained in some way (see infinite universes), or just deos not need to be explained. Everything is strictly determinuistic (except the random, non significant aspect of quantum level). That’s, more or less, the “Dawkins” position.

2) There is no design detectable in the generation of living beings. The known physical laws are perfectly capable to explain what we observe, and nothing more is requested. But the existence of the universe as it is is designed, and God knew perfectly that such an universe would have, in a natural way, generated life. God may interact with the universe in other specific ways (revelation, miracles), but that is only a matter of faith and has nothing to do with science. That’s, more or less, I believe, Miller’s position. That’s TE in a strict sense. Please note hat, in this scenario, evolution is completely random and unguided, although God has designed the general scenario where such a random and unguided process would generate life. In other words, God’s main achievement here would be to have created Darwin’s theory, and made a world appropriate for it.

3) Design is perfectly detectable in biological information. The existing physical laws as we know them are completely unable to explain what we observe in living beings. No random and unguided process can explain that evident, complex and efficient information, its existence and its richness. Only the intervention of a designer can explain that. That’s ID.

In the context of ID, however, there a re various different possibilities when you try to hypothesize how the designer has implemented that information. I’ll try to summarize that too:

3a) I’call this view “weak ID”, and I want to say immediately that it is IMO a very anomalous, and not very useful, point of view. I would not even cite it, if it were not the view expressed by Behe in TEOE, and may be a generic possible “compromise” between ID and TE. I don’t agree with it, and I was very surprised to understand that it is Behe’s philosophical view, but that is only further evidence that, while in ID we agree on very definite scientific facts (and Behe is certainly one of the best thinkers in ID as far as science is concerned), we can very well