Comments on: Thinking about ID as a Theory of Causation

By: Can You Derive Ethics from Science? | Uncommon Descent

Can You Derive Ethics from Science? | Uncommon Descent — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:21:33 +0000

[...] ID is not primarily about origins (though it does have things to say about origins), but rather it is about the nature of reality. If nature is only physics, and legitimate reasoning can only include scientific reasoning, then [...]

By: Intelligent Design is not simply warmed over creationism | Reason To Stand

Intelligent Design is not simply warmed over creationism | Reason To Stand — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:05:26 +0000

[...] called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. Ihave argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and Young-Earth [...]

By: ID and Common Descent | Uncommon Descent

ID and Common Descent | Uncommon Descent — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:40:14 +0000

[...] called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. I have argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and [...]

By: bFast

bFast — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:02:08 +0000

ds: “IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve always thought theistic evolution and ID have no quarrel. Ken Millier is a confused IDist.” I actually think that theistic evolution and ID are pretty close. The big difference seems to be that ID does not accept chance alone as the provider of information, where theistic evolutionists can be quite adimant that chance alone explains biological novelty.

DS: “IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not very well informed on Christian theology and donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only one school of CT in any case.” As one with a bachelor’s degree in theology (evangelical) I assure you that there is not only one school of Christian Theology. Alas, that is the bottom line reason why there is no danger of a theocracy.

By: Jack Krebs

Jack Krebs — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:52:01 +0000

… oops: I meant “whether that be a …”, not “rather.” It’s too bad we can’t edit our posts here.

By: Jack Krebs

Jack Krebs — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:49:56 +0000

According to Christian theology, God has His hands on all that happens – His “control over and contact with” evolution is no different than His “control over and contact with” the daily lives of His followers, and the events of the everyday world. All believers accept that events which look fortunate to us can be, and indeed in the big picture, are part of God’s plan and design for the world. What is chance to us in not chance to God, rather that be a mutation that appears random in the eyes of science or a fortunate event that changes one’s life.

By: Mung

Mung — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:51:54 +0000

I love it. God “uses” a tool without actually having any control over or contact with that tool.

By: Jack Krebs

Jack Krebs — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:24:20 +0000

Why does the position of “theistic evoltion” exclude agency. Standard Christian theology is that all that happens – every instant, expresses the Will of God. I don’t think theistic evolution and agency are incompatible concepts.

I’ve always thought theistic evolution and ID have no quarrel. Ken Millier is a confused IDist. AFAIK (but I’m not very well informed on Christian theology and don’t believe there’s only one school of CT in any case) Christian theology can’t possibly stipulate that God can never be detected otherwise the Catholic church would have to automatically disavow all miracles. -ds

By: bFast

bFast — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:16:02 +0000

Alas Michaels7, according to your link, Dr. Collins seems to be a thiestic evolutionist. He seems to see natural selection (and I presume its sidekick random mutation) as “the tool God used”. I do not see any evidence from the article that he sees “agency”.

By: Michaels7

Michaels7 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:00:43 +0000

Did anyone catch the latest IDUpdate news about Frances Collins? Director National Human Genome Research. New book sure to cause Dawkins heart palpitations, “scientific discovery can bring one closer to God”…

hattip: Tom M., IDUpdate @ ARN,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a.....84,00.html

Another scientist at the highest level recognizes “agency”.

“One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war, said Collins, 56.”

“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.”

“For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to Ã¢â‚¬Å“glimpse at the workings of GodÃ¢â‚¬Â.”