Dialogue Partners


(Peaceful Science) #1

We were just awarded a STEAM grant to find common ground in the origins debate.

We are looking for thoughtful partners in the ID, Progressive Creation, and YEC camps. Of course, we have some people in mind already. Still, I do not want to miss anyone. Is there anyone the community here can reccomend?


(George Brooks) #2

@Swamidass

I found the following paragraph to be very interesting in your linked article:

“Intelligent Design (ID). This movement seeks to use scientific methods to demonstrate that there is evidence for design in nature. ID does not self-identified as a religious or creationist position, and it can be coexist with evolution.2 It is included here because many religious students see ID as a reason to reject evolution.”

As a description of Intelligent Design, I thought it was a pretty good !!! But I’ve become sensitized to compare ordinary Evolution with the very special version of Evolution BioLogos encourages.

But what I think is ironic is that mostly on this list we see ID as a reason to REJECT the BioLogos version of God-directed Evolution.

So this is the most salient aspect of ID I can readily find and see. Dr. S.J., what do YOU think of that oddity?

I would think the one thing that ID would be least useful for is for denying the BioLogos version of Evolution.

What kind of thoughts does all this stimulate for you?


(Peaceful Science) #3

Thanks George,

My first thought, I really need a copy editor =/. You picked out the line with the absolute worst grammar. Here it is fixed…

This movement seeks to use scientific methods to demonstrate that there is evidence for design in nature. ID does not self-identify as a religious or creationist, and it can coexist with evolution.* It is included here because many religious students see ID as a reason to reject evolution.

  • For example, Michael Behe is a leading voice in the ID movement, and also a theistic evolutionist. His acceptance of common descent is consistent with mainstream science. His irreducible complexity argument is not.

My second thought, I hope @Eddie likes the definition too. Then I will know I have truly succeeded :slight_smile:. Also, you might enjoy @Jon_Garvey’s entertaining and kind tribute…

http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2016/08/07/joshua-assaults-the-walls-of-jericho/

Please do consider promoting my project in your social circles. If you want to see peace in the creation wars, this might be one step towards it.

To your question…

BioLogos, I think, is a puzzle to the theistic evolutionists in their camp, and enemy to the anti-evolutionists. As @BradKramer might say, we challenge the premise of the entire debate. They do not know what to do with us in many ways.

Like most large movements, I think ID is best understood sociologically, rather than through the lens of ideological consistency. Though there are many exceptions, many in its crowds see ID as an argument against common descent. Of course, this sentiment is shared by many (but not all) of the leading voices in the movement too.


(George Brooks) #4

It is easy to see that ID makes its best points against those who think there is no God at all.

But when we start getting into the differences between

  1. God-designed creation via evolutionary processes over millions of years …

vs.

  1. God-designed creation over 6 days

vs.

  1. Millions of years of Evolution … but with God specially creating humanity…

well, no wonder we keep arguing over it all.