Clarification on ID and Common Ancestry

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Another person who is a Fellow at Discovery who accepts common ancestry is Michael Denton. There are also some important Discovery folks who, as far as I know, have not come down one way or the other on common ancestry, e.g., John West and Jay Richards.

@Eddie

Really? I would be happy to join the Discovery folks’ discussions and cheer you on … as you batter down their battlements to get them to finally and CLEARLY state their position on common ancestry!

It’s only right, right?

George

[BradKramer]

Eddie,

I think it’s worth repeating here that in my childhood, when I read lots and lots of ID stuff and met Michael Behe and followed the movement closely, I was under the clear impression that ID and common ancestry were oil and water. I don’t remember ever encountering anything that suggesting anything to the contrary among ID advocates or literature. And my impression is that this was on purpose, in order to garner more support among anti-evolution evangelicals (of which I was one). I read a lot of Michael Behe and even met him, as I said, and never heard a peep about his support of common ancestry in any way.

Again, this isn’t to say that you’re wrong, per se, but it’s hard to fault those who think ID means no common ancestry based on the rhetoric of the movement.

[Henry (Henry Stoddard)]

I believe that the original intent twenty-five years ago was to make a movement that was against common ancestry; however, I believe as Eddie does that Intelligent Design Theory and their makers now hold a bigger tent. I remember a time when the American Scientific Affiliation was made up of Young Earthers; however, one finds today that it now contains progressive creationists and evolutionary creationists. It is not as clear cut as it once was.

[Henry (Henry Stoddard)]

I can see your point. I believe Philip Johnson was not a part of the Common Ancestry Group, and to be honest I am not sure that I hold a common ancestry view. I still believe that ID was more conservative in the 1990’s but has changed its direction somewhat. I agree with you that Theistic Evolution was the original goal for the Intelligent Design Theory. But if God can use any method to create, then common ancestry must be considered a possibility. I have Johnson’s book called Darwin on Trial. I used it in seminary and Liberty University was all for it. I believe that Johnson was against common ancestry in the beginning. You are right that Michael Denton does believe in common ancestry.

[Henry (Henry Stoddard)]

I am not trying to butter up to you, but I am sixty years old and remember when Intelligent Design Theory was first formulated. That sounds like a formula. On the most part, I must say that I agree with your basic position. I was an Intelligent Designer for that reason. The movement, to use political jargon, has now a larger tent. I read Michael Denton in seminary, and he was one who believed in Common Ancestry but who later became part of Intelligent Design. I also remember Dr. Irwin A. Moon of the Moody Institute for Science. He helped to form the American Scientific Affiliation in 1941. It was originally a Young Earth association that later accepted Progressive Creationism and then Theistic Evolution.
When you right, you are right.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

In other words, the terms of reference of ID do not require it to take a position on common descent, any more than the terms of reference of the Department of Agriculture require it to take a position on foreign policy. Would you accuse the Department of Agriculture of not being “clear” because it did not state its view on how to handle the North Korean situation?

@Eddie,

I can’t believe you accepted that decision. In my view common ancestry is a CORE issue.

If Discovery can “take a pass” on something like common ancestry, then certainly BioLogos writers can “take a pass” on getting any more specific than “God-Guided”. If you can tolerate Discovery writers REFUSING to specify common ancestry, then YOU can tolerate BioLogos “refusing” to specify Front-Loading or not.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thanks for helping me to see the comparable issues more clearly, Eddie!

George

[Patrick]

And science marches on oblivious of what ID and TE/EC says or doesn’t say. New results are published, new ideas are formulated, new technologies are made using the new results. Diseases are cured, life spans are increased. It is great to be alive in 2016!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

ID’s claim is that there is design in nature. There is nothing in the claim “There is design in nature” that logically requires settling the question of common descent.

Eddie,

I know you won’t be surprised that I don’t accept your post, or the statement I quote above. The issue is at the very HEART of the dispute between Young Earth Creationists and any type of Evolutionists.

Could you explain to me why it is okay for Intelligent Design people to AVOID a key distinction between Young Earthers & Old Earthers … but BioLogos writers have to rigorously spell out whether Creation is Front-Loaded or not to satisfy you?

You write:
“Individual ID proponents take quite clear positions on common descent. That should be enough for you. ID itself doesn’t need a position on common descent, and, by the very nature of the ID thesis, can’t have such a position. But as long as no one is being disingenuous about his personal position on common descent, you should not be troubled.”

You, sir, are attempting to be a brilliant apologist for Intelligent Design!

You conclude with:
"With TE/EC, on the other hand, there is very strong reason to believe that some of the leaders are being disingenuous regarding their views on how God relates to the evolutionary process. There is strong reason to believe that many of them think that God sets the process rolling and that nature does the rest by itself (albeit “sustained” by God), but if they believe that, then their repeatedly expressed view that God is “mightily hands-on” in evolution is disingenuous, since they know that to the average Christian in the pew (to whom they are addressing their pitch) “mightily hands-on” means “intervening, manipulating the details, guiding, steering.”

Eddie, I think there is an AWFUL LOT of hands on if every jot-and-tittle of The Creation is planned-and-executed, based on foreknowledge, so that Evolution and all the other aspects of God’s plan, unrolls EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD. In fact, I would venture to say that God holds together the very fabric of the Cosmos … and can’t just turn on the TV and catch up on the soaps…

Your second to last sentence:
“So if you are looking to criticize people who don’t mean what they say, or say what they mean, I would suggest that you will find more such people among the TEs than among the IDers.”

Pretty insulting sentence, Eddie!

Your last sentence:
“The IDers, as individuals, are pretty much up front regarding both common descent and theology.”

I will believe this if you can tell me that MOST of Discovery’s writers accept “common descent”.

George B.

[Henry (Henry Stoddard)]

I understand what you are saying.

[beaglelady]

@Patrick

And science marches on oblivious of what ID and TE/EC says or doesn’t say

True. As Karl Giberson, formerly part of BioLogos has said, “only nature gets to vote.”

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

Giberson, during his tenure here, showed very little interest in what nature had to say; he spent virtually every column telling us that we had to defer to what “science” had to say. And by “science” he meant, “the consensus view of scientists” (as if in the history of science the consensus had never been wildly wrong), and by “consensus view of scientists,” he meant that view which arbitrarily excludes the possibility of teleology in nature, by definitional fiat.

Well, scientists do study nature. And science is self-correcting.

[beaglelady]

Not interested in more of your standard lectures. If you think that “Giberson, during his tenure here, showed very little interest in what nature had to say” why don’t you look at his blogs?