Why does our Response to Francis Collins confuse things? Our Response to Francis Collins makes it very clear how the situation works:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution—in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutations and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect: Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.4 Even if all organisms on earth share a common ancestor, it does not follow that the primary mechanisms causing the differences between the species must be blind, unguided processes such as natural selection. Nonetheless, Darwin’s tree of life (see fig. A.1) is an “icon of evolution” and therefore deserves careful examination.5 (ID 101, pg. 217)

Since we find Collins’ arguments for human/ape common ancestry to be weak, nothing we write serves to “confuse” how ID interacts with common ancestry. We recognize that ID can be considered compatible with common ancestry but also write, “Nonetheless, Darwin’s tree of life (see fig. A.1) is an ‘icon of evolution’ and therefore deserves careful examination” and after a long analysis, conclude that Collins “arguments in favor of human-ape common ancestry are simply unconvincing.”

I don’t see any reason for confusion and I think that Ted Davis’s charges here are fair at all.

One quibble, two points. Read the paragraph again about the Valley.

I said

“I actually don’t believe this was how it was done for the major changes to evolution but there is no reason to think God could not have done it this way.”

In other words I believe that God could create intelligent life this way if He wanted to but that He didn’t. To say He couldn’t is to arbitrarily put some limitations on God and I am not sure where that would lead. The evidence says He didn’t do it this way. To do it that way the initial conditions and boundary constraints would have to be very different than what He chose to do. He could still arrange to have Stephen and Jerry in His mind from all eternity.

I then go on to say that such a system does exists and it essentially guides micro evolution. It does not have just one exit but the number of exits are numerous but limited. This system guides most of the changes to life we see in this world. It is powerful and so obvious and why it is so easy to accept Darwin in all his glory because the system works right before your eyes for this limited form of evolution. All the Darwinists say is add one more ingredient and you got everything and that ingredient is “deep time.”

Well deep time is an essential part of micro evolution but it is still limited for many of the reasons you, Behe and many others have listed. But none the less micro evolution is still great design. By keeping the big tent, ID is forced to give up this magnificent design process which I believe could go a long way to its greater acceptance.

A very good onward discussion overnight.

On a note or two, or three:

1] Phil and the empirical:

My take here — cf Hasker et al — is that phil is in the end about analysis of worldviews. To do so, it has to look at empirical adequacy, coherence and explanatory power and elegance. So, it may start from experience and questions, and it may in part come back to further experience, but there is much more to it than that, and it turns out that as SB stresses, there are many things that turn out to be priors, in the sense of the underlying logic of right reason.

2] ID and design detection vs mechanism:

Given the significance of identifying THAT there has been design as detected through credibly reliable empirical signs, it5r is sufficient for many purposes to address this issue as a core challenge. To challenge an identification that there is recognisable design, that it has not identified or specifically addressed the mechanism, seems to me pretty far off the mark. The latter is an onward question — “now that we credibly know that there was design, let’s reverse engineer it.”

3] Pandas, follytricks, Judge Jones, ID and creationism

Let’s get back to basics. First, here is the statement that was denounced:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Regardless of motive-mongering [with underlying hysterical or cynical slanders on theocracy; recall here some of the (now too often unknown, ignored, dismissed or suppressed) roots of modern liberty and democracy!], the above is utterly unexceptional, and — apart from an irrational, secularist agenda-driven law and policy environment — would not even be controversial.

Further to this, Judge Jones’ ruling in the parts on ID in general, plainly was demonstrably a copycat from the ACLU et al; crude errors of fact and all. That was incompetent or worse than incompetent, and plainly tyrannical in implications.

Next, Pandas took a major bum rap, as StephenB pointed out above.

–> In a rational environment, if one in the editorial process cuts out words that could be read one way and replaces with language that more explicitly says something else, it is the later that DEMONSTRABLY is what you were trying to say.

–> in the case of Pandas, the language was edited to stress the differentiation between ID as a nascent movement and the then far more better known Creationism.

–> This was also done to conform to law in contemporary rulings.

–> It is paranoia or intentional slander that would read that as trying to sneak Creationism in the back door. And given Ms Forrest’s wider patterns of claims and behaviour, sadly, I must think it the latter.

–> She has utterly discredited herself so far as I can see, given gross dereliction of intellectual duty on even so basic a point as the definition of ID.

–> here is what Pandas actually explicitly states in the published edition, which is what students would have seen:

This book has a single goal: to present data from six areas of science that bear on the central question of biological origins. We don’t propose to give final answers, nor to unveil The Truth. Our purpose, rather, is to help readers understand origins better, and to see why the data may be viewed in more than one way. (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed. 1993, pg. viii) . . . .

Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science. (pg. 126-127, emphasis added)

–> Could anything be plainer than that?

_____________

Bottomline: our civilisation is in deep, deep trouble. Putting on my theological hat, Romans 1 trouble.

On the incoherence of theistic evolutionism as currently practiced, I think TC and SB have made their point, at least in general terms.

G’day, all . . . off to a hot seat in a local lion’s den!

GEM of TKI

Jerry: After Plato, all other philosophers seem like an anticlimax. So I’m onside with you (as you might expect from my nom de plume). And Plato has been a great inspiration for many of us who champion intelligent design. But don’t overlook Aristotle’s natural philosophy, either. Compared to my master, Plato, he was a bit of a blockhead on some things — couldn’t do math to save his life, and, despite his best efforts, astronomy just wasn’t his forte — but he is the greatest of the ancient thinkers on the subject of teleology in biological systems, which is a subject near and dear to the hearts of all intelligent design theorists.

T.

Sorry I didn’t get whatever point you were trying to make about embryology and the Psalm. I thought that my answer was direct and clear, but obviously I was not answering the right question. I took it that you were arguing that the literal meaning of the Psalm contradicts the known facts of embryology, but that you didn’t think you were less of a Christian for sticking to scientific embryology nonetheless. And I was trying to agree with you. And I understood you to be making a general point, i.e., that modern Christian scientists shouldn’t be bound by other apparent scientific inaccuracies which appear to be endorsed by certain statements in the Bible. And I was trying to agree with you about that, too. But, since I’d told you already that I wasn’t a Biblical literalist of any kind, I wasn’t sure what larger goal you were driving toward by making these (for me) non-contentious points. Neither my original posting nor any of my subsequent arguments depended on reading Biblical statements as scientific authorities.

I am glad that, despite your past negative experiences with UD (which you certainly did not let us forget!), you felt welcome here, and that you now realize that UD people do not reflexively kick newcomers out of a discussion merely for disagreeing, not even when the newcomer accuses the lead writer, quite unjustly, of “whining.” I hope you will jump in on new threads from time to time, whenever you see points of theoretical interest to you. As you can see, we have many well-read and thoughtful writers posting here, who love to wrestle with theoretical propositions and reason out their implications.

I am sorry you don’t like the pseudonymity of the place. At the risk of being accused of “whining” again, let me remind you that for many ID proponents, pseudonymity on the internet may well be the difference between acceptance into or rejection from a graduate program in the life sciences, between being hired as a biologist or having to drive a cab for a living, between being granted tenure as an astrophysicist or having to look around for one-year contracts for the rest of your life. That’s something that people in your position, i.e., tenured professors, don’t have to worry about. It’s also something that, generally speaking, TEs don’t have to worry about. When the Iowa States of the world start treating ID proponents as well as your college treats TE proponents, then we’ll drop pseudonymity – not before.

I do thank you for all your answers and clarifications. You’ve helped us make a start toward addressing the root causes of the unfortunate conflict that has arisen between ID and TE. Hopefully, with good will and open minds on both sides, we can continue to find common ground.

—–“By the way I do not buy your dichotomy of mindless purposeless vs God controlling every move. I believe God could use so called random events to create anything He wants if He also designs the system that processes the random events……”

If you introduce teleology at any level, then you are not talking about what I am talking about. I don’t think that total randomness can produce much of anything. With regard to constrained randomness, I guess my position that is the more you constrain it the closer you come to a purposeful resolution. I must say this, however. I was speaking solely in terms of God programming an evolutionary process to unfold according to a plan. I never say anything about “God controlling every move?” With all due respect, I have never misread anything you said on a level of that magnitude. That comment causes me to suspect that you didn’t grasp my points at all, which may be my fault, by the way.

—-“ I said this before on another thread and no one seemed to understand it. I used the concept of a valley with one entrance and one exit and while there are many paths through the valley they all must eventually lead to Rome or the one exit. The trek through the valley could be a random process but constrained as to outcomes. I actually don’t believe this was how it was done for the major changes to evolution but there is no reason to think God could not have done it this way………

Yes, I recall your comments. For me, the issue is not whether such a process could produce intelligent life, which I doubt very much. What I was discussing constitutes a far greater challenge than simply getting from nascent life to intelligent life. The issue is whether it can produce a finished product perfectly in accord with a well conceived specification. In other words, will such a process take us from the idea of Jerry (as formed in God’s mind) to the reality of Jerry? I don’t think contingency, (even constrained) can climb a mountain like that. So, we have a disagreement. I guess that means that every time you bring it up, I will deny it and every time I deny it you will affirm it.

—-“You notice I said several million years which means I believe that age is an essential part of ID and by refusing to acknowledge it, ID has become self limiting as well as opening itself to criticism it shouldn’t have to bear. I know people here don’t want to hear this but I am with Ted Davis on this.”

I don’t think that the age of an organism has anything at all to do with making a design inference. I don’t mind hearing you say it, I just don’t agree with it. We don’t need to know anything about the history of an ancient hunter’s spear to detect its design. In my judgment, the whole point of the design inference is that human, superhuman, or Divine artifacts all leave the same kinds of clues.

—-“You failed to see the significance of my call to recognize the empirical evidence in the debate with TE’s on the various philosophical or theological options. If any of the options are true, then each would imply a different pattern in the fossil record and the current biological world. Each philosophical position has implications which can then be verified by looking at the empirical data. People have their pet theories but if the real world does not support it, then one has to admit the problem. As I said the real world does not support a gradualistic approach for macro evolution. I asked the same question of Ted Davis and Stephen Matheson but neither has responded as yet. I hope they do because we could all stand to learn how they think on this all important topic. Maybe I am wrong about gradualism but so far no one has taken it on.”

I don’t think that I gave your points a fair hearing. I was very tuned in to the theme of the post which was, “TEs your position is incoherent, but we can help you.” I probably should have been a little more flexible about discussing what, to me, was a peripheral issue. Not every comment needs to be about incoherence.

—-“By the way on ASA some are criticizing you which I think is unfair because they have been silent on a lot of the key issues we believe are important. If they weren’t so silent then they might have a point. It is interesting the criticism here is making them think a little more about how vocal they should be. But we also criticize a lot of people here on this blog without giving them the chance to respond. However, I doubt that someone like Ken Miller would ever come here to respond.”

I did ask some very hard questions and I did press. All I can say is if that if they think that is rough treatment, they have led very sheltered lives. Even so, I would be very open- minded toward criticism of my behavior from any UD blogger. That means that I am not committed to my present style of discourse. Taking it one step further, if I thought that I made this website look bad, I would seriously reevaluate my role here. My attitude about ID is this: If I become more of a liability than an asset, I need to bow out. I want ID to succeed.

—-“They are doing a little soul searching at ASA and will have to see if anything will come of it. They do not know how to define what a TE is and some seem to be unhappy with the title. I have read their blog for over a year now without seeing much progress there on dealing with those who criticize them except to mock the criticizers. Ted Davis is a major exception and has been a defender of ID people without embracing the concepts. What he has said here, he has said on ASA. Another is Loren Haarsma who currently has a thread about myths about ID and myths about TE. So far as I can see Davis and Haarsma are two extremely upright people and have captured ID better than most of the rest at ASA. Haarsma is probably making many at ASA think more clearly about ID.

I agree that those two carry themselves very well.

—-“As a final note, let’s just say what I believe is true about the empirical data could change with new data. I enjoy the give and take here and have learned a lot because of it so my understanding has changed a lot since first posting here. That is why I was glad to see Ted Davis and Stephen Matheson come here so we can get some intelligent counter opinion. You are right, I don’t like philosophical discussions. I had 12 credits of philosophy in college and thought it was mostly bull****. Since that time I have grown to love Plato and really can’t see the importance of Aristotle though I believe he was instrumental on the issue of natural law which I endorse. I have gone through several Teaching Company courses on philosophy and sometimes my head spins at what they are trying to say. But Socrates is the man!!”

I can sympathize with those who have to endure philosophical instruction that doesn’t relate to daily life. Good philosophy is really nothing more than amplified common sense. If one is grounded in it, everything changes for the better. Bad philosophy, which is the norm today, is worse than nothing at all. There are three classes of people: educated, uneducated, and badly educated. To be badly educated (educated in the wrong philosophy) is worse than being uneducated. Socrates does rock doesn’t he?

I, on the other hand, need to work a little harder at interacting fruitfully with those that I disagree with. In other words, I must learn to preserve their self esteem with the same vigilance that I protect my own. In communication, they call it “saving face.” Maybe you can let me know when I am pushing too hard or if I am being unfair. Since we often disagree, I gather that I will get a lot of practice. One thing sure, it is unwise to make enemies when it is unnecessary. I don’t know about constraining “randomness,” but I think a good case can be made for constraining passions.

To all correspondents: I see occasional carping about this or that question that didn’t get answered by me or by Ted. Step back and think, and give us both a break. This thread is enormous, and some (such as jerry) took note of what I tried to get you all to see: there’s no way for me to sustain a massive open forum while meeting my other obligations.

But… at least some of the questions and topics are important and worthy of further discussion. I don’t know where or when, but I am keen on continuing dialog with you all on these various topics. There were/are some rough spots, but I see abundant opportunities to explore common ground and to reduce unedifying tension and hostility, and I am grateful for the reception I received. There is no question I am afraid to answer, and nothing I have seen in this thread that I am unwilling to address. (That doesn’t mean you get to write multiple-choice exams for me, and Ted Davis in comment 114 nicely addressed that recurring problem.)

To Thomas, I think we made progress toward understanding each other, and I hope my answers to your questions were helpful. My point about theistic embryology didn’t get through, but we can revisit that sometime soon if you’re interested.

To jerry and Kairosfocus:
I share your interest in the thorough discussion of evolutionary science. This was neither the time nor the place. But there can be a time, and a place. In the next few weeks, I’ll come up with a plan, probably on my blog, for addressing some of the questions you raised. If that plan doesn’t work for some or all of you, I’m confident we can come up with something that will work. UD is not a place for open discussion, and is not the right place for such a conversation.

StephenB: we got a little off track there, and I wish I had noted specifically how I objected to your behavior, so we could have an opportunity to work it out and move forward. One hindrance to this is the pervasive pseudonymity of this place, in which I can’t contact you privately. My M.O. would be to send private email, and that (in my experience) almost always leads to understanding and reconciliation. You did annoy me, and I really don’t like your style, but we were doing well there for a while and I’m sure we can do it again. Please consider accepting my apology for gruff shortness, and I’ll look forward to further conversations with you.

It’ll be at least 2 weeks before I can consider entering another serious discussion here, but feel free to contact me anytime with private questions or to explore ideas for more deliberate interaction.

You said I could have the final word but there is never any final word here.

I don’t think the empirical data supports a gradualistic approach to evolution. Whether it be the mindless purposeless approach proposed by Darwin and his heirs or a semi teleological approach espoused by TE’s (and by the way they are in disarray on this and have no common accepted opinion). Nor do I· think God directed a gradualistic approach either through secondary causes or by direct maneuvering of the genomes through direct action or indirect actions of quantum manipulation. How it was done, I haven’t a clue but the evidence does not support any gradualistic approach. I have yet to find a TE who will defend the gradualistic approach in writing nor anyone at the ASA site that will defend it either. When I finish Keith Miller’s book, I may have a better perspective. Nor interestingly any Darwinist who comes here will coherently defend it either. I find this interesting.

By the way I do not buy your dichotomy of mindless purposeless vs God controlling every move. I believe God could use so called random events to create anything He wants if He also designs the system that processes the random events. Not everything in the system would be random as the whole process could be directed through initial conditions and boundary constraints. I said this before on another thread and no one seemed to understand it. I used the concept of a valley with one entrance and one exit and while there are many paths through the valley they all must eventually lead to Rome or the one exit. The trek through the valley could be a random process but constrained as to outcomes. I actually don’t believe this was how it was done for the major changes to evolution but there is no reason to think God could not have done it this way. This idea was brought up before several times before under the rubric “designed to evolve” when the evolve here means a somewhat random process such as sexual reproduction and selection pressures but constrained by the initial conditions (for example the initial DNA sequences) and the boundary conditions (e.g. structure of the genome and its capability for change plus environmental conditions)

I happen to believe that micro evolution is such a God designed system that uses random events but constrained by the content and structure of the genome and selection to produce new variants and eventually new species. I happen to believe it is a magnificently designed process and explains most of the life on the planet but is limited and cannot account for macro evolution or as some would say new functionally specified, complex information. The new species produced would be very similar to the old ones. It may produce most of the 300,000 beetle species but not the ability of an insect or vertebrae to fly. This is my opinion and it could change with new information or become even more reinforced as new genomes are sequenced and we find out how little natural selection has done in the last several million years. You notice I said several million years which means I believe that age is an essential part of ID and by refusing to acknowledge it, ID has become self limiting as well as opening itself to criticism it shouldn’t have to bear. I know people here don’t want to hear this but I am with Ted Davis on this.

You failed to see the significance of my call to recognize the empirical evidence in the debate with TE’s on the various philosophical or theological options. If any of the options are true, then each would imply a different pattern in the fossil record and the current biological world. Each philosophical position has implications which can then be verified by looking at the empirical data. People have their pet theories but if the real world does not support it, then one has to admit the problem. As I said the real world does not support a gradualistic approach for macro evolution. I asked the same question of Ted Davis and Stephen Matheson but neither has responded as yet. I hope they do because we could all stand to learn how they think on this all important topic. Maybe I am wrong about gradualism but so far no one has taken it on.

By the way on ASA some are criticizing you which I think is unfair because they have been silent on a lot of the key issues we believe are important. If they weren’t so silent then they might have a point. It is interesting the criticism here is making them think a little more about how vocal they should be. But we also criticize a lot of people here on this blog without giving them the chance to respond. However, I doubt that someone like Ken Miller would ever come here to respond.

They are doing a little soul searching at ASA and will have to see if anything will come of it. They do not know how to define what a TE is and some seem to be unhappy with the title. I have read their blog for over a year now without seeing much progress there on dealing with those who criticize them except to mock the criticizers. Ted Davis is a major exception and has been a defender of ID people without embracing the concepts. What he has said here, he has said on ASA. Another is Loren Haarsma who currently has a thread about myths about ID and myths about TE. So far as I can see Davis and Haarsma are two extremely upright people and have captured ID better than most of the rest at ASA. Haarsma is probably making many at ASA think more clearly about ID.

As a final note, let’s just say what I believe is true about the empirical data could change with new data. I enjoy the give and take here and have learned a lot because of it so my understanding has changed a lot since first posting here. That is why I was glad to see Ted Davis and Stephen Matheson come here so we can get some intelligent counter opinion. You are right, I don’t like philosophical discussions. I had 12 credits of philosophy in college and thought it was mostly bull****. Since that time I have grown to love Plato and really can’t see the importance of Aristotle though I believe he was instrumental on the issue of natural law which I endorse. I have gone through several Teaching Company courses on philosophy and sometimes my head spins at what they are trying to say. But Socrates is the man!!