Ann Gauger's latest salvo against Dennis Venema's arguments against an original pair of human beings

I don’t know what the key difference between Jonathan‘s and my view of Genesis is, because I don’t know what Jonathan’s view is. If you’d like to clarify for him, please feel free.

This strikes me as hairsplitting. I said that the church didn’t have just one view of Evolution, which is true. You suggested the church had one view and when stating it outlined the view with which I disagree. I don’t hold to the view of theistic evolution. This should come as no surprise. Period. I support intelligent Design.
Now concerning what should be taught in schools – public school should definitely not teach intelligent design. It would be appropriate however to present some of the evidence that argues against evolution. And there is such evidence. For Catholic schools there’s more freedom. I would hope they would teach both sides of the question concerning evolution and maybe some ID as well. For a Catholic school teaching about the design of creation goes hand-in-hand with the Scriptures, and should be no problem.

Theologians should not dictate to scientists,

Jonathan, what’s the rest of that sentence? Scientist should not dictate theologians. And since neither theologians nor scientists teach in high school classes in Catholic schools, It shouldn’t be a problem. Most of the time. That last is a little humor, in case you missed it. There might actually be theologians and scientists teaching in Catholic classrooms. On rare occasions.
Now I think I will go dance a jig to return the blood to my brain. I’ve been sitting here too long.

@agauger,

I see now my mistake. You said that you do not hold to YEC. Very good.

Usually, the only thing that separates the majority of I.D. supporters from being BioLogos supporters is they are YECs.

Since many BioLogos folks believe God combined the miraculous with natural evolution… what exactly makes your position different from BioLogos?

I believe there is evidence for design in nature, and I believe that a historical Adam is possible.

2 Likes

@agauger

So… You aren’t actually in a minority opinion in Catholicism, right? These are both mainstream Catholic views!

So… You are here for the better quality disputation on other matters?

Yes I have a strong religious commitment. I am a Christian.

Science does not trump anything in my faith. I let the Bible do theology, and I let science do science. I take the view of historic interpreters such as Adelard of Bath.

“In response to his nephew’s query about why plants rise from the earth, and the nephew’s conviction that this should be attributed to “the wonderful operation of the wonderful divine will,” Adelard replies that it is certainly “the will of the Creator that plants should rise from the earth. But this thing is not without a reason,” which prompts Adelard to offer a naturalistic explanation based on the four elements.", Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 71.


“Adelard’s emphasis on the use of reason is rather remarkable. His message is clear. He firmly believed that God was the creator of the world, and that God provided the world with a rational structure and a capacity to operate by its own laws. In this well-ordered world, natural philosophers must always seek a rational explanation for phenomena. They must search for a natural cause and not resort to God, the ultimate cause of all things, unless the secondary cause seems unattainable.”, Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 72.

Also Bernard of Tours, who strongly encouraged the investigation of nature, believing that although its laws were hidden, it was possible for them to be sought out and discovered.

“[Humanity] shall behold clearly principles shrouded in darkness, so that Nature may keep nothing undisclosed. He will survey the aerial realms, the shadowy stillness of Dis [the underworld], the vault of heaven, the breadth of the earth, [and] the depths of the sea. He will perceive whence things change, why the summer swelters, autumn blights the land, spring is balmy, winter cold. He will see why the sun in [sic] radiant, and the moon, why the earth trembles, and the ocean swells. Why the summer day draws out its long hours, and night is reduced to a brief interval… (Cosmographia, Mircosmos [sic] 10)”, Christopher B. Kaiser, Toward A Theology of Scientific Endeavour the Descent of Science (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007), 175.

Also William of Conches.

“William thought it improper to invoke God’s omnipotence as an explanation for natural phenomena. Like all natural philosophers in the Middle Ages, William of Conches believed that God was the ultimate cause of everything, but, like Adelard of Bath, he believed that God had empowered nature to produce effects and that one should therefore seek the cause of those effects in nature.", Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 73.


“He also rejected the idea that Scripture was of use in natural philosophy.”, Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 73.

Of course these days you get some anti-evolutionists saying this is Deism. To them I reply with William’s words.

“But modern priests do not want us to inquire into anything that isn’t in the Scriptures, only to believe simply, like peasants.", Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 74.

Those words are just as applicable today as they were then.

No. But it is inexcusable to claim that the reason we must do so is because there is insufficient evidence for firm scientific conclusions. That’s the problem with Humani Generis, since it makes that claim when it isn’t true.

[content deleted by moderator]

Clearly you are unaware that I have always strongly believed in, and continue to defend, a historical Adam and Eve.

But your opinion is irrelevant when contrasted with the overwhelming scientific evidence. This post is relevant here.

I agree. But when you say “Theologians should not dictate to scientists”, and then go and teach theology to kids and that theology contradicts established scientific facts, then you’re not adhering to your own principle. You’re letting theology dictate to science.

This is sleight of hand. When theology is taught in schools, and that theology contradicts established scientific facts, that’s theology dictating to science. You don’t need actual theologians for that, just teachers who are teaching theology instead of real science. I’ll finish with William of Conches again.

“when modern priests hear this, they ridicule it immediately because they do not find it in the Bible. They don’t realise that the authors of truth are silent on matters of natural philosophy, not because these matters are against the faith, but because they have little to do with the strengthening of such faith, which is what those authors are concerned with.”

2 Likes

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.

3 Likes

@agauger:

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:

  1. Natural evolutionary processes,

and

  1. the YEC scenario - “poof!” - from dust you are a human!, there is a middle ground.

  2. 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

@Bilbo,

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

@agauger,

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:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161222033034/http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

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?

8 posts were split to a new topic: Criticisms vs. Attacks: Where’s the line?

@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…