Darrel R. Falk's Generous Review of Michael Denton's New Book

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

This ain’t my first rodeo, Eddie. I’ve known many fellows who debate like you do … and who are unrelenting.

Nothing bends their mind to consensus or compromise. I’m not going to sweat your lack of satisfaction with how I discuss topics here.

Have a wonderful and joyous evening.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The “laws of nature” need not be conscious for the Author of those laws to be so. Nobody says that Newton and Kepler did not believe in a conscious God because they believed the planets were governed by laws. Thus, if evolution turns out to be governed by laws rather than chance, it does not follow that there is no conscious God behind those laws.

And if you really want to understand Denton, don’t do “Google Books.” That will give you only part of the text. Denton’s book is a sustained, coherent argument, like Darwin’s Origin of Species. Surely you have the patience to read an entire book? Especially one so groundbreaking?

@Eddie ,

I thought I would update this thread with this footnote:

[Footnote 3: Stephen C. Meyer. Signature in the Cell. Harper Collins. Retrieved 13 November 2010. Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–43.]

Page 557:

Footnote #4:
"Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent
design in EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, 326-343. Antony
Flew, a longtime champion of atheism, recently announced
his abandonment of atheism based on the evidence of
intelligent design, but emphasized that his religion was far from
conventional (much less sectarian): "I’m thinking of a
God very different from the God of the Christian and
far and away from the God of Islam, because both are
depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam
Husseins" (“Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=315976 ).
See also Flew, “There is a God.”

You have two choices:

Ague that Denton’s God is not a CONSCIOUS God …

or -

Argue that a God doesn’t have to be conscious to be God.

Or, I suppose you could just accept that Denton’s ID work is still working for a God…

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

I don’t understand the relevance of this. What does Stephen Meyer’s 2010 opinion of Denton’s 1985 book have to do with Darrel Falk’s opinion of Denton’s 2016 book?

I think the special relevance of Denton is what he brings to the party. You once proposed Denton as an Intelligent Design proponent who DID NOT attribute the Designer to God.

So I thought it was important that we get a better understanding of what he thinks about God. It seems that his use of the word “Agnostic” is not exactly how other people use the word. We should understand this.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The purpose of my “column” was not to stimulate discussion on Denton’s view of God (which we have had elsewhere), but to stimulate discussion on Denton’s “structuralist” view of evolution and to raise the possibility that ID and TE/EC might find some common ground if a “structuralist” approach to evolution were to replace the Darwinian one. That is, I was trying to build some bridges – an attempt I thought you would appreciate, since elsewhere you have accused me of creating friction between ID and TE/EC.

I see, @Eddie, so: can you describe this UNIFYING “structuralism” in one, maybe two sentences? I’m VERY interested in unifying ID and TE/EC.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

I am always amused when people who want me and others to follow their views … are UNWILLING to share their views…

I’ll get to it when I get to it …

[BradKramer]

@Eddie

I want people to read original sources before making up their minds what somebody thinks and why it’s right or wrong.

Are you saying that, in general, anyone who wants to have a view about origins needs to spend hundreds of hours reading original sources in science and theology? What is the role of institutions and trust figures in all of this (considering that 99.5 percent of our audience doesn’t have the time or acumen to read all those sources themselves)?

[BradKramer]

@beaglelady you quoted the wrong person.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

I want people to read original sources before making up their minds what somebody thinks and why it’s right or wrong.

Such as Suzan Mazur’s book? That’s an original source?

[Casper_Hesp]

Going back to your original post, I believe that the article BioLogos published today clarifies why Falk has been positive about Denton’s book.

“Evolution is Still Not a Theory in Crisis, but Neo-Darwinism Might Be”

I suppose we can glean a few relevant points from that article:

1. Denton acknowledged common descent via natural processes.

2. Denton critiqued only the idea that all modifications have occurred in small steps. He left space for the idea that natural processes brought about large modifications, instead of rejecting common descent.

3. Denton drew on a wide variety of respected scientific sources.

Taken together, these points make it logical that Falk was pleased about this book, despite its anti-darwinism rethoric.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

Suzan Mazur’s book, as I have said maybe five times now in your hearing, consists mostly of lengthy excerpts of the exact words of evolutionary theorists Those lengthy excerpts are indeed a primary source for the thought of those evolutionary theorists. They tell you reliably what those theorists thought, at least at the time of the interview. They are of course in popular rather than technical form, but I would rather hear the theorist popularize himself or herself, than have Wikipedia or the NCSE or some other hostile source do it.

It’s still not an original source.