And here is your problem. The resistance to ID would disappear almost overnight if the Discovery Institute would give up its political agenda. But since the Culture War provides the whole raison d’etre of the organization, the likelihood of that is zero.
Ann Gauger's latest salvo against Dennis Venema's arguments against an original pair of human beings
3 Likes
For someone who avoids YEC positions because of your support for science, I’m finding your comments about the origin of the human body to be puzzling!
Between the two scenarios:
- Natural evolutionary processes,
and
-
the YEC scenario - “poof!” - from dust you are a human!, there is a middle ground.
-
God introducing environmental factors (e.g., the Dino killing asteroid) or specifically cherry-picking genetic mutations, and a combination of both!
If you are an Old Earther, on what grounds do you resist scenario #3 (assuming you do)?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@agauger wrote:
“Well, I for one don’t think the origin of the human body is already certain and proved. So it doesn’t seem out of date to me.”
Jonathan responded:
But your opinion is irrelevant when contrasted with the overwhelming scientific evidence. This post is relevant here [link provided]:
From the linked post (only 7 hours old!) which you included:
Bilbo writes:
“And what I find particularly annoying is the constant accusation that the only reason people favor the design explanation is that they want to base their religious apologetics upon it.”
Jonathan responds:
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wouldn’t this qualify as a form of ID?
1 Like
Exactly, @Bilbo!
And this is not the first time this has been noticed and commented upon.
The difference between those BioLogos supporters who adhere to a “kind of I.D.”, and those others who actually use the phrase I.D. - - seems to be limited to just one thing:
BioLogos adherents to a kind of I.D. are virtually all “Old Earthers”, and have no problem accepting the figurative nature of some aspects of the Genesis creation story.
In contrast, the “usual crowd” that promote I.D. are almost all “Young Earthers” - - or those who claim to be Old Earther’s but refuse to discuss it in public (if they did, it would either lead to infuriating the YEC I.D. folks … or revealing that, in fact, the I.D. folks who claim to be Old Earth are not in fact accurately describing their position!
So then BioLogos should have no problem with Michael Behe, who, in his book The Edge of Evolution, not only argued for ID, but also argued for common descent. __
1 Like
From what I’ve read of Behe, he is not I.D. person you think he is.
He talks about Evolution vs. De-vollution - - which is a totally bogus concept.
And then there’s this truly wacky idea about all of genetic diversity being loaded into the first living cells:
1 Like
So you really think that if we said nothing about teaching in schools the persecution would stop? I doubt it. Scientists who object to our view will stilll object.
1 Like
Scientists object to I.D. because it is loaded with bad science.
BioLogos folks who object to I.D. would no longer be trying to fight off a YEC invasion into the public schools.
See how things work differently depending on what you are working on?
Hi @gbrooks9,
The Behe piece you refer to was a hypothesis he made for the purpose of an argument.
However, Behe does indeed argue for common descent in his book, The Edge of Evolution.
2 Likes
The persecution only started because of Discovery’s attempts to push intelligent design into schools. Where do you think all the ill will and bad publicity came from? As far as the rest, I’ll risk quoting myself from another current thread:
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 each year, they are dreaming. Might as well rename it the Don Quixote Institute.
4 Likes
@ cwhenderson:
Just for clarification, I didn’t write the emboldened words you found offensive (your comment made it look like I was being quoted as having said that). I was just quoting from ENV.
The quote isn’t perfect, but it isn’t that bad–at worst it used the term “Darwinist” which some people find offensive (note that this word is often used as a non-offensive descriptive term in the scientific literature – see: https://www.discovery.org/f/628), but otherwise it was just complaining about people who bring the debate into “the gutter.” Those words were clearly not aimed at Dennis Venema, and I’m not sure why complaining about people who are uncivil is therefore uncivil.
Anyways, the point of that quote, which perhaps you missed, is:
(1) Dr. Venema complained that ENV doesn’t allow comments
(2) I found an instance where ENV did allow comments and even “respectfully” invited Dr. Venema to participate in the comments.
(3) Therefore, I was wondering if Dr. Venema chose to go and participate.
No response from Dr. Venema so far to my query about whether he participated in the forum. But I think I answered my own question. It took me quite a bit of searching around, but I found the referenced comment thread in the Internet Archive at:
There are over 25 comments, but none from Dennis Venema.
It seems fairly inappropriate to accuse someone of never providing a discussion forum when they have provided such a forum, even invited you to participate in that forum, and then you declined to participate. Is an apology to the ENV people from Dr. Venema warranted here?
@Jay313: You are aware that Discovery Institute opposes teaching ID in public schools? From their science education policy:
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
Instead of recommending teaching about intelligent design in public K-12 schools, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in curriculum. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.
Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
(Discovery Institute’s Science Education Policy | Discovery Institute)
They don’t support teaching ID. But what if they did require teaching ID, why should that justifiably cause “ill will”? Feel free to disagree with such a policy (which isn’t even their policy) and oppose it vigorously! But why should such a policy make you or anyone justifiably feel “ill will”? Seems kind like you’re trying to blame the victim of all the incivility here…
J Clearly you are unaware that I have always strongly believed in, and continue to defend, a historical Adam and Eve.
A Well, I for one don’t think the origin of the human body is already certain and proved. So it doesn’t seem out of date to me.
J But your opinion is irrelevant when contrasted with the overwhelming scientific evidence…
Bless you, Jonathan. You bring a hammer to swat a fly. If theologians teaching theology is dictating to science, then the reverse is true also. But we are in no danger of theologians dictating to science in the Catholic Church. Far from it. Plus, I was making a joke–very bad, but a joke none the less. I had a mental image of Madame Curie and Mother Teresa in a suburban classroom together. I am sure they would be polite to each other. Remember Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur and Georges LeMaitre, all scientists and Catholics?
And last but not least, we agree with each other about the historicity of Adam. It’s just that you don’t like my reason for agreeing with you. And the bolded statement you made above, if true, cuts against your belief as well as mine.
2 Likes
@gbrooks9 > Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design.
What does the rest of the paragraph say? Note the word suppose. The paragraph is an argument for why pseudogenes might just be the product of damage due to age, and not the product of evolution. He sets up an imaginary scenario to make his point.
He talks about Evolution vs. De-vollution - - which is a totally bogus concept.
So bogus the Quarterly Review of Biology published it!
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d2fcb838b1d419c3a5cf915c900492b498b5.pdf
1 Like
His imaginary scenario is ridiculous. But, following @Bilbo’s assertion, I am now looking for more sensible scenarios in another of his books…
Perhaps you could tell me what page “devolution” is included? I did a search and could find no
“De-vo…”, “Devolu…” or any other combination…
Oh, yes, I’m well aware of it. I was a teacher in Texas. But “teach the controversy” is a work-around solution that fails for practical reasons. Don’t get me started …
I’m not blaming the victim. But I’m willing to start assigning some blame, if you want me to go there. I can show you hard data about the number of victims of the Culture Wars. The Millennial generation is abandoning the church in record numbers. The data says that the cause is the Culture Wars. Dave Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, spells it out pretty well in You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church . . . and Rethinking Faith. I won’t connect the dots for you. That would be impolite. But I would encourage all organizations whose sole purpose is to fight the Culture War to lay down their arms. Even if they are laboring with the best of intentions, the results show that their efforts have been counterproductive.
5 Likes
Document this. And not from an anti-ID site, but from a legitimate, disinterested site. Our policy is stated very clearly. We do NOT recommend teaching ID in public schools.
"
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).
Methodological naturalism is a particular view of the world, that claims there are only matter and energy in the world. It is a purely materialistic philosophy. No room for belief in God there. So you think that should be the philosophy that science uses? Then what are you doing here on a predominantly Christian site?
Hi Dr. Gauger,
I think you’re confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
2 Likes
Ann, if you really did intend methodological naturalism in that statement, and that’s not just a typo for metaphysical naturalism, I’d be very curious to know why you think methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are equivalent.
But, it’s probably just a typo.
2 Likes