Thanks for the link. Fred Hoyle seems to think that life originated elsewhere, and came to earth. That doesn’t sound like ID, unless he believes the designer was on another planet.
The design evidenced by life appears to me to be like the design shown by ice crystals-- pretty, but the result of natural physical processes, not actual design. Arbitrary percentages against life’s having formed by random chance is more guesswork than science. I remember reading that even against artificially high odds, life could have started in a bubble of sea water by random processes within a few years.
Hi Larry,
Hoyle made it clear he thought life was designed:
Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design [my emphasis]. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true." (27-28)
How good is the evidence for or against ID? That’s for other threads.
2 Likes
I agree, and in fact I would go one big step further. I think the concept of design is independent from whether there is a “designer.” For me, design is a thing whether or not it comes from a “designer.” Dan Dennett argues this point, strongly, and I think he’s right. In any case, it is wrong to object to ID simply because the ID camp is (indisputably) overwhelmingly creationist, and it doesn’t matter whether ID people use it for apologetic purposes. What matters is whether the claims are plausible, whether the arguments are sound, whether the evidence is present or absent or honestly considered. The vast majority of ID theorists fail these tests spectacularly, but that’s a different thread.
4 Likes
I think this is a perfectly fair request.
In fact, it strikes me that refraining from this sort of argument is merely an application of the Golden Rule, for those of us who are bone-tired of the accusation that we favor the evolutionary consensus for the sole reason that we, too, want to appeal to the unchurched masses and base our own brand of apologetics on EC. There was one frequent YEC poster in particular a few months back on here who just. would. not. let. up on this tired ad hominem line of attack that was demonstrably false.
So I feel your pain, brother. And besides, as others have said, there are plenty of other fertile lines of debate (e.g. “Are particular examples of putative irreducible complexity actually irreducibly complex?”) that we can pursue without getting lost in the weeds with this one.
2 Likes
This outlook I intuitively appealing - my concern is with attempts to derive a scientific “law” or let us, at least, theorising from this to a scientifically testable proposition for design.
My view is that anything that is mathematically demonstrable and/or consists of geometric elements, implies design. But when we enter the biological arena, the conflicts erase any intuitive aspects of any argument.
The particular ID design explanation would look a lot more reasonable if it was accompanied by a testable hypothesis (they don’t have one), some explanation of mechanism (they don’t have one), accurate predictions (they haven’t made any), and the actual advancement of scientific knowledge through discoveries with practical application (they don’t have any). Where is the ID tiktaalik? Where are the practical applications of ID?
It’s hard to avoid that conclusion when we see IDers oppose evolution on the grounds that “something, something, Calvinism”, or “something, something, original sin”. And when IDers place evolution in opposition to creation, or belief in God, then it doesn’t look like their case is based on science.
2 Likes
Annoying? Did somebody say annoying? Oh boy, that throws the door wide open! Here are three of my ID annoyances:
1) ID is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.
Simply because one uses information/data from science to make the argument does not make it a scientific argument. All of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God (or first cause, prime mover, necessary being, intelligent designer, etc.) draw upon the natural world to make their case, such as Aquinas’ “five ways.” Why, then, does the Discovery Institute insist that it is a scientific argument? (Are the reasons political? hmmm)
2) ID says that it is not arguing for the existence of God, but only an intelligent designer.
Fine. Then why should I care? My faith is in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I want people to come to know him, not some indeterminate designer. (I actually find this offensive to my Christian sensibilities. How does it glorify God to argue that he exists, yet avoid using his name? But … I’m sure God views it differently than I do. I have no idea what he thinks about all this. All I know is that I could not do it. To me, it is mealy-mouthed and borders on intentional deception.)
3) ID paints science as a great conspiracy of atheists fighting against God.
Ever since Darwin on Trial, the ID movement has campaigned to paint “methodological naturalism” as a conspiracy to keep God out of science (and, by implication, the classroom). The whole approach is doomed to failure. If the Discovery Institute thinks they can reinvent the way that the world does science simply with a handful of researchers and a few polemical books and articles, they are dreaming. Might as well rename it the Don Quixote Institute.
Personally, I have no problem with intelligent design arguments. Some of them I even find persuasive. What I do have a problem with is the Discovery Institute and their political agenda. They are more concerned with “winning” the Culture Wars than with winning people to Christ. My 2c
Edit: Their approach actually pushes people away from Christ, particularly the young, and there is loads of data to back up that statement.
4 Likes
I suggest making a distinction between a scientific belief and a reasonable belief. I believe that the other people responding were in fact conscious at the time they composed their comments. There is no scientific way of proving that belief. However, I claim that it is a reasonable belief.
Likewise, even if ID does not qualify as a scientific belief - I think there is reasonable debate about this issue - I think it can still qualify as a reasonable belief.
I agree that people who offer religious objections to EC are annoying, also.
1 Like
Hi @Bilbo,
Perhaps a hypothetical example will help illustrate why many people see ID in these terms.
Imagine there was an organization whose stated purpose was to advance religiously neutral “design” arguments. This organization claimed that their scientists were simply making scientific claims about design in nature, and were not trying to advocate for a specific deity behind that design. However, with only one exception, every single scientist in this organization was a devout Muslim. And many of these Muslim scientists would frequently appear alongside Muslim apologists on public stages, videos, books, and other materials. Not only that, but the main online publication of this organization would frequently feature discussions on Islamic theology and Quranic interpretation.
Would it be reasonable to conclude that the position of this organization really had nothing to do with advancing the Muslim faith?
6 Likes
Hi Brad,
My objection is to the claim that the only reason people have for believing in ID is religious apologetics. It may turn out that one of their reasons for believing ID is the advantage of religious apologetics. But then we have a different set of circumstances.
1 Like
The Christians who believe in ID-without-the-desire-for-Religious-Apologetics are pretty much those who support BioLogos.
They believe God is involved in the outcome of Creation because God is the creator. They aren’t just trying to convince Evolutionists to abandon Evolution.
So once again, are you saying that BioLogos would have no problem with Michael Behe’s position?
@Bilbo Can I ask you if you have ever wanted to know this ID? Does this awe inspiring creation that points to a creator, also give you a yearning to want to know that creator? Do you believe this creator wants to know you or has any interaction with it’s creation since the creation? Or did this creator just create the universe, and let it go without any personal interaction with it?
This is how I pretty much began my personal journey that lead me to my current faith in God.
I disagree with that. I think it is pretty clear that the founder of BioLogos saw a great divide between his beloved religion (Christianity) and his belioved science, that he wanted to educate those that both can be reconciled. Meaning the purpose of BioLogos was to reconcile ID with religious apologetics. But it is not to discount religious apologetics in any way.
“BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.”
I’m not sure what relevance your question has to the topic.
1 Like
Just me trying to learn from one who has ID views. As I am sheltered and have not had many chanced to ask an ID that. But I know just like Christians or atheists, even among our own views we have differences. I could have asked you as a representative of ID what ID believes, but I thought not to.
Saying that I don’t believe it is that much different than EC. But I can’t really say that if I don’t know much about it.
It is interesting so hear your frustrations. The atheist crowd has support on their side, and the YEC crowd has their support. But the EC crowd is ‘fighting’ atheist one one front, and YEC on the other. Where it appears that ID is fighting Christianity and Atheist too. I can see that being a very rough spot to be in, and admire you for having the perseverance to stick to it despite opposition on many fronts.
I do not think my BioLogos description has much to do with Behe. While I am examining your claim that he offered his Evolutionary credentials in another book, we still have the matter of his fixation on De-volution - - which is a bogus claim.
Hi still learning,
Okay, that helps. The basic view of ID is that there is evidence of intelligent design in features of the natural world - usually meaning the biological world. There are differing views within the ID camp. Mike Gene would be at one extreme. He favors the hypothesis that somebody designed the first living organisms, and designed them so that they would tend to evolve in a certain direction by neo-Darwinian means. Mike Gene is probably a Christian, and probably thinks that God would be the designer. But he doesn’t think there is sufficient evidence to determine the identity of the designer. Michael Behe is a Catholic, who was a theistic evolutionist, and became convinced that intelligent designer occurred not only in the origin of life, but also throughout the course of evolution. He believes that the designer is God, but again, he thinks the evidence is insufficient to determine the identity of the designer. I think most of the people at the Discovery Institute would be Old Earth creationists. But not all. Paul Nelson, for example, is a YEC. Most ID proponents are Christians, though there are some Jews, Muslims, and agnostics. I prefer to think of myself as somebody who tries to follow Jesus…rather imperfectly, I’m afraid.
I would add that I think most ID proponents think there is insufficient evidence to determine who the designer is, though most of them believe it is God.
Hi Bilbo,
I’m not a moderator, but just a warning: The folks on the Forum are a loose hodgepodge of folks with varying positions, anywhere from Unitarian Universalist to Anabaptist to Reformed to Episcopal and everything in between and beyond, including several kind-hearted atheists who hang out in our midst and put up with us, not to mention visiting friends from other origins camps. We approach Biblical hermeneutics differently, sometimes vastly differently. We have differing views of providence and Adam & Eve and every other relevant subject under the sun.
Not one of us speaks for some sort of official BioLogos position. You would do better to interact with individuals here as interested individuals and not as representatives of BioLogos… because they are not that.
Blessings,
AMW
8 Likes
OK, thanks.
That sounds like something else I was unfamiliar with. I asked about Unitarian Universalist, which sounds very similar. To which I am still not 100% in comprehension of, but it sounds like there is no religious creed, they just search for truth. ID sounds like that in that there is no religious creed, but they are in believe in a creator/designer. Does that offend if I say creator? Or are they seen as synonyms?
It does sound very agnostic to me, in that one believes something is there, but not sure as to what.
Is there a difference between a theistic evolutionist and a Evolutionary Creationist? Or is a theistic evolutionist same as ID, in where the theistic deity is unknown/unproven?