No kidding! It absolutely is a nit-picking quarrel … something you excel in.
For the purpose of this discussion… I’m talking about anything after the creation of Energy and/or Matter in the Universe.
And for the purposes of this discussion, I’m not talking about something God does (like make it rain in Seattle) that is within the normal scope of natural causes.
I’m talking about anything that would qualify as demonstrating Intelligent Design - - and which is not possible by natural causation.
In general I agree with a surprisingly large proportion of what you have written. In particular, I agree with your strong emphasis on the transcendence and unbounded autonomy of God, and on the person of Jesus. You do have a correct focus on the Gospel here too, and I agree that all this is so much greater than anything we find in science.
For my part, I engage this conversation to serve the Church with my gifting, so that we might declare the Gospel of Jesus more clearly in a scientific world.
That being said, there are some things that I think you miss.
ID scientists most decidedly do NOT claim this at all. They do not invoke God. What you are describing here is someone who believes in “special creation”, but many ID scientists are not special creationists. Some are theistic evolutionists (e.g. Michael Denton and Michael Behe and even @eddie here).
Aside from mixing up ID and special creation, I think you miss something important here.
This is exactly what I do. And many theistic evolutionists too. Some of us do try and take a humble posture and allow for special creation.
In context, the parable is rooted in the strong evidence for common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees. Many Christians disagree and believe that humans were specially created. Maybe they are right. The 100 Year Old Tree
Within the framework of mainstream science, strong evidence for the common descent of man exists, but when taking God into account it is not definitive. Evidence and Evolution
So please understand that many theistic evolutionists (including me) do take this humble tone that you hope for. We might have more in common than you think.
@gbrooks9, I think @eddie is correct here. I think you are misrepresenting the ID case.
I think he is correct to point out that an architect’s blueprint is an example of design that is not miraculous. Though he put it more obtusely…
I think it is important to fairly represent positions, especially when we disagree with them.
The ID claim it that “design” is something that can be reliably recognized independent of consideration of the one doing the design, independent of the “designer”. In line with this proposition, they are very careful to avoid talk about the designer. A key goal of the program is to objectively define “design” independently of the designing process or mind. This is why they use analogies to technology so often. To them it is more than an analogy, but an common intellectual category for biology (things God made) and technology (things man made). Though, of course, they do not reference “God” in this at all.
Notice, they are not making any claims about how designers design things, or their identity. They claim to be able to have a rigorous and scientific way of establishing that something is designed, without considering designers. It is possible the designer could have used entirely natural processes (as human designers and how God could have done too). Miraculous intervention is not at all required or implied by the observation of design. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the basic definitions being used here.
Now, of course, many IDists think that God “designed” by way of miraculous intervention. But not all think this way (see Behe and Denton)/ These are really separable issues.
So @eddie is entirely correct in his protest. It really isn’t fair to equate design with miracles. That does just fail basic logic.
I think the real problem with the ID position does not require misrepresenting it.
On philosophical/theological level, there is a certain presumption that somehow God’s designs are in the same category as human designs. Maybe this is true, but why would we think so? Is that really correct? Knowing what I know about biology, it looks really nothing like human designs. We draw analogies (as humans are want to do), but they are just weak analogies. Life is very very different than a cell phone or a computer program. Even if we could reliably detect human design, why would we think that would extrapolate to things that God designed?
On a scientific level, I see no case in science where design is considered without implicitly or explicitly modeling the designer. Design is not just defined by what natural causes can do, but also by what the proposed designer can do. Theories of design in science are at a very pragmatic level testing the hypothesis of the designer acting against the hypothesis of things acting on their own. This is what leads to real difficulty for ID in science, because scientists (like me) regularly ask to provide models of design and the designer (in contrast, SETI is happy to provide these models for their case). This is that is necessary to test ideas in mainstream science, but it directly contradicts the foundational premise of ID to provide actual models of design. They are claiming that design can be detected without this. I totally disagree with that premise, especially after working for decades in science. In the end, what ever they are doing it is not mainstream science.
For these reasons, I think there is a fundamental difference between “divine design” and “human design.” The similarity is almost entirely a product of language, and does not extend much farther than that. They are more different than apples and oranges.
Regardless, let’s start with accurately representing one another. We are still going to disagree. But at least that would be more honest.
I would agree if I was talking about a blue print. But let’s say it was universally agreed that e. coli flagellum was God’s work. I’m not talking about a plan. I’m talking about the flagellum itself !!!
If the course of natural events cannot create that flagellum… and only God could have made that happen … THAT my good sir … is a Miracle.
Is it not? If it is not a miracle, then why are we using it as a proof of intelligent design?
No, that’s not what I am doing. What I am doing is pointing out that under the best of circumstances, should the ID camp meet every challenge and rigorous criteria, if the ID camp proves to the world that there is at least one case (or perhaps several cases) of irreducible complexity in life forms extant - - it means that the event or phenomenon “in question” could not be produced by lawful natural causes. << By definition, right Eddie?
… If all this happens the ID community has also, at the very same time, demonstrated the existence of a Miraculous event!
Having done that, the case would then be closed regarding whether Intelligent Design should be treated in public schools… since public schools are not an appropriate place to be discussing Miracles!
FINAL NOTE: It is ironic that ID proponents might actually get further by never proving their case. Because once they prove it - - how are they going to get American public schools to embrace teaching about such a Miracle?
You want me to discuss the video with you? And we can’t even agree on whether
Something which Can Only be Done by God -
Is it a Miracle ?
OR
Is it not?
Come on, Eddie! I’m not sure what @Swamidass was trying to imply in his last posting on this topic. Maybe he’ll re-visit the issue and offer some clarifications. But in the meantime …
I just don’t see how you - - or anyone - - can say:
When God does something that only He can do - - that isn’t necessarily a miracle!
To be clear, I am not an ID advocate. I’m just trying to help you understand their position. Of course you already know that, but I don’t want that to be missed by people joining the conversation.
The problem @gbrooks9 is that this is decidedly NOT what ID says. THey do not say this. Period.
Rather, they say, we have applied some “science” to determine that a specific artifact (e.g. a house, a computer, or a living cell) is “designed.” Period. That is where the ID claim stops.
Notice how I included a house and computer in the argument? This is actually extremely important to their case. They are drawing a strong analogy here. Clearly, it is reasonable to conclude that a house is designed. Of course, it is designed using only natural causes, without a miracle, but with the addition of an intelligent agent (the humans that designed and constructed the house). Same with the computer. No miracle or reference to God is made or implied by the claim that a specific house is designed.
This is why @eddie objects so strongly to your representation. They are not saying that “only God” could have done something. Rather they are saying that some sort of intelligence was required for that thing to happen, whether it be humans, animals, aliens, or something else. And this could also include Behe and Denton’s model of design, where God does it by setting up the initial conditions of the universe.
Of course, I still think they are wrong, but for a different reason. As I was explaining before, I know of no case in science were design is considered without explicitly or implicitly considering the designer. Moreover, biology (e.g. living cells) are not like house and computers in a way that makes that logic work. There are key fundamental differences. First and foremost, we believe they are designed by God. I won’t repeat why this is important again, but my prior point goes into this in detail.
And yes, all Christians do believe that God created and designed us, but science does not have tools to consider divine design.
It is possible, but far from certain, that a design theory could be constructed by starting from abstract “design principles.” In one framing, that is what theistic evolution. We claim that God created in an iterative way in a process of common descent with modification by largely (if not exclusively) natural processes. Other propose alternate principles. For example, the Young Earth Creationists Walter ReMine proposes the Biotic Message Principle (and this is invalidated by the data). So in principle, design principles might be a testable way forward.
I don’t know if it would ever be part of mainstream science, but it would better model that methodology than the current iteration of ID.
While I appreciate the narrative, I don’t think you have clarified the matter being discussed.
Many posts ago, I asked @Eddie to join with me in an assumption - - that the ID community successfully identified a convincing example/case of irreducible complexity … he assented.
Now let me add one more sentence to keep the quibbles to a minimum. Let us also assume that the nature of this find (whether it be flagellum or something even more early in the emergence of life, there is no need to consider whether aliens, or Eddie’s great-great grandfather “designed” this “thing” - - and there was general agreement that no sequence based on natural laws could produce it.
The natural tendency is, of course, to conclude that the thing/event/case was produced by God, in the absence of any other explanation. This is, after all, why we spend so much time on the BioLogos boards discussing ID.
The investment being made here is the investment in the rhetoric: this could not have been reproduced by any sequence of natural laws. << Inside this sentence is the concept of a Miracle.
Now… if Eddie would like to take back his agreement … and would only be willing to say “there was general agreement that the only way this event could occur by means of naturally caused events is if an alien race designed it and installed it on Earth”… well then, by all means, make that proviso clear. And stop mucking up the discussions of natural law with things that you want God to have done … but you aren’t willing to say that to anyone.
ID makes testable claims and can be potentially falsified. That alone grants it status as a scientific endeavor. ID is as useful as archaeology and forensic science in that all 3 venues seek to answer scientific questions as to how something came to be the way it is.
Umm houses are designed using artificial processes. And yes ID stops at saying something was designed but that doesn’t mean we have to. After design is determined there are many new questions to be answered and ID doesn’t stop anyone from trying to answer them.
Also one doesn’t even consider a designer until after design has been determined.
You cannot assert that ID is a theory, but not TOE, when there is a century of scientific study on Evolution … and virtually no experimental history with ID.
Did you even read my statement @JoeG? That is exactly what I said about ID…
I even refer to computers and houses too. For goodness sakes, you are disagreeing with my repeating my exact words back to me. At least that makes it clear that I understand your position. Good greif.
I do point out that there is no precedence for this in science. I do not think this works. We can disagree on that point, but at least recognize that I am correctly representing your position.
Also, I’ll thank you for pointing out that ID is not necessarily anti-evolution. You are entirely right. Denton and Behe are both theistic evolutionists that hold to common descent.
Though, I hope you would also acknowledge that anti-evolution sentiment is exactly what motivates many individuals to support ID. This sentiment traces directly to many founders of the movement, including (for example) Philip Johnson. One only has to read the ENV blog (of the discovery institute) or Uncommon Descent or Darwin’s God to find thousands of anti-evolution statements.
I think this split reality is what really causes the disagreement. ID is not intrinsically anti-evolution, but certainly main IDists are anti-evoluiton.
LoL! Where did I assert that ID was a theory? And all experiments support ID- every experiment tat elucidates the structures of ATP synthase, bacterial flagella, the genetic code, etc., all support ID.
You do realize that ID can make testable claims without being a formal theory? Testable hypotheses precede theories…
Well when evolution is defined as Dawkins’ blind watchmaker thesis it is easy to be anti-evolution. However by defining it as such makes it untestable and out of science.