What I like about this question is that neither needs to be compromised. Christianity gave birth to science as we know it because it found joy in adoring our Creator through the works of His creation. That has not changed and does not need to change.
I agree - science is “restricted in its most fundamental task of investigating the world” and that is why Aristotle’s approach generalizes rational thought into the higher-level category of Philosophy. Science is only one way to structure rational thought - it is not the whole, not the only and not the most appropriate tool for rational understanding of many subjects.
It seems to me that people give too much weight to the label of “science”, especially when in comparison to “rational thought”. It is the former that is a special case of the latter, not the other way around. There seems to be some underlying fear or assumption that if a field of study is not “scientific” then it is somehow lesser or not worthy of consideration. Science is a great way to derive formal models whose falsifiable predictions can be experimentally tested - it’s very useful when it applies but it does not apply to most things in our human experience. As such, it would seem to me that the best approach is to not engage in the same mistake as the new atheists by attempting to impute theology into purely agnostic scientific models.
I agree this could be a valid direction of research and I have mentioned several times that I would be interested in exploring formal models of design detection if any were available that were generally accepted. Dembski’s papers did attempt to go in the right direction - measuring information using entropy/information theory approaches and measuring its “plausibility” using formal analysis of optimization strategies (i.e., No Free Lunch theorems) but unfortunately there are at least three issues with this. First, there are almost no ID proponents working in this direction and, in fact, there may be no one working in this direction now that Dembski seems to have moved on to other interests. Second, Dembski’s papers had technical flaws that are well documented online. Third, and the most important point, finding that “information” is “implausible” (i.e., very low probability) is only a strong indication that the proposed mechanistic framework is not sufficient. In other words, it is a “detection of ignorance” by suggesting that “we’re missing something” - it does not demonstrate that an intelligent agent had to be the source of the observed information.
I agree that this is a dangerous possibility that needs to be countered. In fact, I need only refer to my own notes on the margins of The Language of God to confirm how noncommittal I found it to be at times when going through his exposition of the subject. Thankfully we can promptly see that BioLogos beliefs reflect a clear committment to God’s natural and supernatural intervention without any need for detectable teleological contingencies.
My response to claims that evolution is “ultimately directionless” is that this is a statement of faith as much as someone else’s claim that “God guides evolution through natural processes”. While evolutionary mechanistic processes can be modeled stochastically, science cannot address “why” specific mutations happen - maybe it was “random” according to some distribution or maybe mutations are “allocated” to genotypes according to how God wants it to happen, especially the ones that matter most (e.g., emergence of humans from common ancestors). I know of no scientific way of making this distinction so any claims that science shows why evolution happened reflect a misunderstanding of the scope of scientific knowledge are should be properly labeled as positions of faith.
My point is that ID’s defining reason to exist is the claim that design can be mathematically detected and thus demonstrate the existence of intelligent agency. I would agree with you and Jon that it would be great if this could be done but as of today this is still just wishful thinking. If I now add your point that ID has no bearing on “the truths of Christian revelation” (which I agree), then it seems there is nothing left to define it as a movement other than wishful thinking. If ID is not scientific as it claims to be and cannot detect design or prove intelligent agency as it wishes to do, then what is it for?
If ID’s response to valid criticism that it has no formal models with falsifiable predictions through experimental observation is that ““Science” is a shifting term.” and “It would be far better if we dropped the word” then unfortunately that comes across as just being evasive when the claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. We should not blur lines that are clearly defined by the scientific method solely for the purpose of attempting to rescue ID claims that were overreaching to begin with.
There is no danger in asking a question but there is damage in claiming to have an answer that is known to be incorrect. In fact, ID was so assertive in claiming its views that it did go to court and, by insisting to have “scientific methods”, probably contributed more to a general perception that “Christians do not understand science” than anything YEC did before or since. Things would be a lot simpler if ID simply dropped its claims to being a scientific approach; but if it did then I suspect it would very quickly fade away from public debates.
you should actually have seen my comment in reply to your earlier comment.
Guess my flippant reply was not welcomed here so I hope I phrase it a bit more neutral.
going by John’s Gospel God is the “word” logos moving reality into order or as Aristotle says: God is the prime mover. The word reflecting God would be to love thy neighbour like thyself. Now whatever makes any person go or move to act or preoccupies his/her mind reflects the logos by which they live / order reality - thus when people say “for God’s sake” when they call for what they think of as their God. For those calling out for other words sake it is clear what words move them. They mostly complain about those who consciously declare to follow the abrahamic God but then if they do things for loving themselves, e.g. my sake or for the sake of words we do not mention on this forum I would not want to publically admit to that word being what makes me go either, but pretend not to follow any God
I hope this time the explanation raises smiles and not flags and people understand what i mean.
Just to check that I do not speak Chinese so perhaps someone else left here might help me to understand what seems so incomprehensible here.
I would hope that you understand the concept of God being the prime mover as of Aristotle or Paul:
for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
Now once you reach the age of reason you start to consider what moves you. If the ideal you follow is based on a higher idealised self than your own and you derive your pleasure from helping others in the name of this ideal you will be happy to do things for your Gods sake and confess to it. If however you are aware that the thoughts preoccupying your mind are of selfpleasuring nature, particularly with sexual undertones to confess to that being your God requires a certain boldness or you might better try to justify the self centeredness of your existence by arguing for the absence of a higher self aka God.
In a nutshell,what preoccupies your mind becomes your God. This is why you are a reflection of your God, whether you like it or not, and with some reflections it is too embarrassing to admit it.
that my comment was sparked of by yours should be obvious by the thread view.
you can’t help that you are a projection of what you accept as your personal God and that God is “only” or “just” a projection of on idealised self. The central question here is if the conception of the idea of God was given to men by God, from outside men or was the idea created by men, e.g.evolved inside his brain. In other words is God the consequence of evolution or is evolution the consequence of God and I side with the latter, but either would be a stumbling block to the denial of a metaphysical God that determines the progress of reality as long as God is logic compliant.
Lammoureux nicely pointed out the differences between Darwin presented in his texts and the “Darwin in the image of Dawkins”, by showing the distortion caused by the “Dawkins transformation” by "selective presentation. However what purpose does the question of Darwins believe serve in the context of determining the truth ofevolution? Is it to serve our desire to appeal to authority? Does it make the theory more or less acceptable to Christians if it came from Darwin that believed in God as if it came from a Darwin that did not believe in God. And what if he believed in the wrong kind of God?
