When I say “God’s use of natural laws”, I mean the way He uses natural events for His purposes. For example, bringing rain to cause a flood (not magically creating water on the earth). I don’t think that’s anachronistic, though you might quibble with the term “natural laws” (which wouldn’t concern me). I’m not aware of any “energies from God” which sustain the creation. I see God as external to the universe, not inside it and part of it.
I read what I can, my dear @Eddie
Mostly I conclude that the truth is frequently the opposite of what you say it is.
Naturally when I say “evolution” in this context I am referring to “Darwininan evolution”, not any other kind of evolution.
But you can prevent being infected by confused thought about ID, front-loading, etc. by relying on better sources. Uncommon Descent, I’m embarrassed to say, is not always a good source.
This just means that ID proponents disagree among each other, which is no surprise; you think their views are confused and that Uncommon Descent is “not always a good source”, but they clearly think differently. That’s precisely why I was careful in my description of that link. I said it was “an example by an ID proponent”. I didn’t represent it as the ID view, as if ID is monolithic. The disunity among ID proponents is one of their greatest challenges.
This seems to be the best thread to discuss a REPLACEMENT “label” for Front-Loading.
If ID folks were first to use the phrase regarding putting genetic traits in the first life … obviously we need a DIFFERENT phrase for designing all of creation into a perfect configuration at the moment of creation.
Any suggestions or proposals for a label OTHER than front-loading?
Yes, I said the ID front-loading argument against evolution. That is the ID front-loading argument against evolution. If there’s another one, I’m not aware of it. I didn’t represent it as the view of all ID proponents.
Then I am sure you can answer its objection to the ID front-loading argument it critiques.
[quote=“Eddie, post:25, topic:4380”]
Why “naturally”? I am not a mind-reader.[/quote]
Because that was how I had used the term throughout the entire conversation. That was the meaning in context. You don’t need to be a mind reader to understand that. How many times can you find me using the term “evolution” in this discussion with the meaning “evolution which is not Darwinian evolution”? I had consistently used it as a term in contrast with the ID case.
I have read much of Michael Denton’s work. I have read a lot of Michael Behe’s work too. I have also read critiques of both their work. What I find consistently is that both of them are writing to support a personal agenda, neither of them conduct rigorous scientific experimentation to test their hypotheses, and neither can point to scientific evidence which demonstrably validates their theories. The fact that Denton shifted his position from opposing evolution completely, to accepting a form of “guided evolution”, indicates to me that he is aware his original position was untenable, and he has been compelled to weaken it. The fact that he took so long to accept what other scientists had known for decades, does not fill me with confidence in his scientific insight.
I am fully aware that ID is of itself not incompatible with evolution. I haven’t argued otherwise. I identified an example of an argument used by ID proponents against evolution.
I note that in all this you are spending a vast amount of time on the meta-debate of who said what, rather than on the actual core issue of the science. I find this is typical of ID proponents. This is one of the reasons why I have been totally dissuaded from the ID case.
Eddie spends his time on meta-issues for the purposes of sport-debate.
2 Likes
You statement (that I have placed above), is another way of accepting the Sovereignty of God over the Creation, and includes a purpose to all events in Nature to its Creator, so it is unclear why you are not concerned with what is often meant by “natural laws”, as these have formed a major point for arguing against miracles (i.e. God would not break the laws of nature that He placed in the Universe). Thus the term “natural laws” cannot be so easily dismissed from these discussions.
The sustaining of the creation requires a non-Deistic understanding of divine action, so that a simple externality of God seems insufficient. I think the transcendental and immanent aspects of God have been discussed at length and are part of Orthodox Christianity. The phrase I introduced (energies from God) is synonymous with “sustaining the creation by God”, but I accept that phrase is not used by many Christians.
If you read my article you will understand what I mean by “natural laws”. I am not concerned with the name, but the concept is indisputable. I did not say I am unconcerned with the concept. I wouldn’t have written an entire article on the concept if I was unconcerned with the concept. Naturally I am not denying that God could and does suspend those natural laws when He chooses.
I don’t pretend that I don’t have an agenda. Of course I have an agenda. I also have biases. That’s why I acknowledge them up front, and I declare my hand, and I don’t pretend I’m objective. I didn’t suggest you try to edit the RationalWiki page, I suggested you answer the argument. You could do that right here. Please include details of all the relevant scientific experiments and data.
I don’t pretend to be an arbiter of ID science, and I know Denton and Behe know more about science than I do. But others clearly know more about science than they do, and I don’t need to be a scientist to understand that it’s a problem for you that both Denton and Behe accept common descent. Nor do I need to be a scientist to understand that when Michael Denton uses the “micro-evolution is not macro-evolution” argument, he is not being intellectually honest.
He wasn’t at all ambiguous in his first book. He was opposing evolution by natural selection. His later work has some continuity with his previous work, thus.
“I remain entirely opposed to the notion that a succession of RANDOM UNDIRECTED changes in biological systems was responsible for the evolution of life.”[1]
However, it also has some discontinuity with his previous work, thus.
“the argument presented here is entirely consistent with THE BASIC NATURALISTIC ASSUMPTION OF MODERN SCIENCE-that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life AND EVOLUTION and the origin of man, are ultimately EXPLICABLE IN TERMS OF NATURAL PROCESSES.”[2]
In particular, his later work is contrary to the creationist position.
“CONTRARY TO THE CREATIONIST POSITION, the whole argument presented here is CRITICALLY DEPENDENT on the presumption of the UNBROKEN CONTINUITY of the organic world–that is, on THE REALITY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.”[3]
Remember, Denton accepts common descent. He believes humans evolved from non-human ancestors. What do you think of that?
[1 Michael Denton, “The Intelligent Design Movement: Comments on Special Creationism”, Phillip E. Johnson and Denis Lamoureux, “Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins” (Vancouver: Regent College Pub., 1999), 152.
[2] Michael Denton, “Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe” (New York: Free Press, 1998), xviii.
[3] Michael Denton, “Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe” (New York: Free Press, 1998), xviii.
I am not adopting an adversarial approach Jon; the statement that God ordered nature is always understood in the sense of a Sovereign laying down decrees, or laws. I was hoping to add to your comments, by discussing a difference with what is mainly understood by “laws of nature” as those obtained by science. On the latter, your article constantly mentions reason and the Logos uttering commands to Create the Universe. I suggest that these matters of reason are currently discussed as the intelligibility of nature, or the reasonable way we may comprehend nature. So “natural laws” as a way of saying God created an orderly Universe subject to His will, is theologically sound. I see confusion possible if “natural Law” is the same as any scientific theory that is in vogue.
1 Like
Yes, understood, thanks.
Ok well until you can demonstrate this, I can’t see it.
Great, so you accept common descent? You accept that humans descended from non-human ancestors through a process of evolution? And if you don’t, then it’s a problem for you.
I’m aware of this. But the number of them who actually make the same argument as IDers do (that micro-evolution occurs but macro-evolution does not), is vanishingly small to the point of being insignificant. There is no serious debate in science, in favour of the argument that micro-evolution takes place but macro evolution does not. You can’t bluff me with this kind of minority report. I’ve already been down this road, a long time ago. I’ve seen all the typical ID tricks; the cherry picking, the presentation of minority commentary as if it’s mainstream, confirmation bias, avoiding scholarly consensus, false neutrality, inflating authority, inflating evidence, manufacturing controversy (what you’re doing here), and selective tolerance. Just as an example, you cite a statement by Dobzhansky which he made back in 1937. This is hardly the current state of affairs. That statement is totally irrelevant.
That’s the point; in the early book he said it was more consistent with the creationist position. Later he reached conclusions which he said were explicitly contrary to the creationist position.
I have never met an IDer who believed macro-evolution takes place.
No, I said ID is not incompatible with evolution. Plenty of IDers are opposed to evolution.
But that is not all he has said.
I don’t think you’re representing that argument accurately. The argument is that the very specific distinction between micro and macro evolution to which anti-evolutionist IDers and other anti-evolutionists appeal was invented by creationists. That’s a fact. Those who accept evolution understand that micro and macro evolution are simply different points on the same evolutionary continuum. They do not say that micro evolution happens to a certain degree and then stops, and macro evolution never happens.
It’s not quibbling to point out that your quotation of Dobzhansky was irrelevant.
So what?
This isn’t in dispute.
So what? That doesn’t effect at all the fact that what you call “Darwinian evolution” actually takes place, from a micro level to the macro level.
That’s ok, I didn’t. I charged him with intellectual dishonesty for misrepresenting the issue. It doesn’t matter how you dress it up, he makes the same micro/macro-evolution argument as Ken Ham and the YECers. It’s not an intellectually honest argument.
I don’t believe they say that. I believe they say real biologists don’t make the distinction between micro and macro evolution that creationists make.
Yes it was. He was talking about a situation back in 1937 which does not exist now.
But you haven’t provided any evidence for this.
And that is what he says. And it’s wrong. But you said “there continues to be dispute over whether one mechanism governs the whole process in a continuous way, or whether at some points other mechanisms kick in”, and that Denton isn’t intellectually honest for raising that issue. And I agreed. I pointed out that it’s fine for him to raise that issue. But it’s wrong for him to misrepresent that issue as if it is evidence for the same micro/macro-evolution argument as Ken Ham and the YECers.
Yes it is. It doesn’t matter how many people hold an intellectually dishonest position, it’s still intellectually dishonest.
I am arguing against their position. I’m pointing out that one of their key arguments simply isn’t true. And please be clear on this, do you accept macro-evolution or not?