Daniel, what do you think of the heuristic value of ID, the impetus for further research? If say, a perceived irreducible complexity is attributed to supernatural intervention, you have your explanation and that is the end of the road. A naturalistic presumption means you have a nagging unsolved riddle and so presents a focus for scientific conjecture, research, debate, more research, and ultimately the expectation of consensus. It logically could be, should God have directly intervened in creation, that science could hit upon features in nature that never yield a naturalistic explanation. The empirical track record, however, so far favors confidence that gaps in scientific understanding are eventually filled in, even as new ones open up. Does ID short circuit this process, and how many false positives do you allow before the principle itself becomes suspect?
Simply: Pursuit of what is true, whether or not it leads to new avenues of further research or exploration.
Even so, ID itself should be able to be embraced as a working theory and tentative conclusion (just like any scientific conclusion), and never as a final conclusion that demands or requires all further exploration, consideration, hypotheses, or experimentation be curtailed.
ALL scientific theories should be open to being testable, and potentially disproven, based on further research and evidence, ID included.
Dear Daniel, Thank you for pointing that out. I did not mean to offend you, and apologize to you for doing so.
Based on your feedback, I have rephrased my 3rd question to more clearly state what I had intended the topic of this forum discussion to be:
âHow do you approach gracious dialogue when you encounter people who are critical of your views of science?â
I am a scientist, so I have felt ostracized by certain Christians who seem to think that my faith is not strong enough, due to my views on science. And likewise I have felt ostracized within the science community due to my faith. I would like to understand why this is so. What deters gracious open dialogue on these topics? Why are there so few Christians who are scientists? Are skeptical or cynical views promoted within Christian communities in such a way as to deter young people from pursuing careers in science? Does our inability to graciously dialogue on issues of faith and science turn people away from the faith?
Have you felt ostracized for your faith by scientists or ostracized for your scientific views by people of faith?
What should our strategies be to promote productive dialogue? How should we best fight against the popular view in our culture that makes people think there is a conflict between science and faith?
No. They are trying to prove something. Something I believe God is careful to hide from us.
Yes, if they wanted to prove it was supernatural. Or, in the case of the first two, you simply accept that the Bible says they were supernatural.
Dear Chris,
Your points are well taken, so I have modified my post, changing the words âskepticismâ to âcynicismâ Thank you for the discussion you started!
Michelle, thank you for that. Personally, I love science, I always have. Astronomy, quantum physics, biology, organic chemistry, you name it. I had begun A double major in biology and chemistry before I got the bag and transitioned deep into theology, but I always have loved science. I was skeptical of macroevolution during my undergrad days based on my understanding of science, and certainly there was a culture of hostility against my views, so unsurprisingly I generally kept them to myself for a bit.
I donât currently face much hostility for my views, but all over the place I see my views and sympathies being attacked as âanti-âscienceâ, and those with whom I have most sympathy being similarly attacked.
Even here on the biologos discussion page, I notice that the major proponents of ID (Meyer, Behe, etc.) are often ridiculed as ignorant, out of their league, unlearned, or the like. It is one thing to critique their ideas, methods, conclusions, or the like. But there are far too many ad hominims for my taste. And, of course, it is repeatedly asserted that ID as an entire endeavor is ânot science.â
It is this latter characterization, as mentioned above, that helps feed my overall skepticism. It is one thing to seriously consider the claims of ID proponents with an open mind and reject them based on the merits (or lack thereof). It is another to refuse to give any serious consideration to their proposal on the grounds that it is ânot science.â
Hi Daniel,
I am sorry to hear that this has been your experience. I am very new to the forum and have not had time to read many of the feeds. I guess the online nature of the forum can sometimes bring out the worst in people, even in spite of the reminder at the top of page that the dialogue should always be gracious. Do you also read the articles on the main BioLogos site? Hopefully they are more gracious than the open forum.
What has drawn you to, and what keeps you reading the BioLogos forum?
I have personally appreciated your kindly and knowledgeable discourse, @Daniel_Fisher, in many varied topics; as I am sure many others on this board have. Thank you for your deep history and perspective, both theological and science-loving. We havenât agreed on everything, but we can focus on God, which is most important; and sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron. I am sure we will learn more from you as time goes on. God bless.
Amen! Iâve benefited from hearing Danielâs thoughts, even if we disagree on some science topics. 
True. We need Daniel and his tribe to keep us honest and help us examine flaws in our thinking, of which there are many. There is certainly a difference between vigorous disagreement (which should be expected) and rudeness, and I apologize if I have failed to recognize the latter in myself or others. We can always do better.
Michelle, thank you for asking⌠What had drawn and kept me here is that I never like embracing ideas without having them challenged or unexamined, and I value second opinions of those who can sharpen or challenge my ideas. I want to know what is true, not what affirms my current beliefs. This is true about the two things I find most engaging, Bible/theology and science, and so of course, their overlap as well. But frankly I think I reached my limit on the âage of patriarchsâ thread, and probably would have just disappeared if not for my promise to @Randy that eventually Iâll get back to him re the inerrancy discussion.
I was a bit dumbfounded. I thought I was clear, that I had heard of the creationist perspective of declining ages due to postdiluvian changes, but I wanted to hear any and every other hypothesis. The phenomenon (in the text) of large ages, and their precipitous decline, fascinated me from the time I was a child, and I remember discussing it with my a Father when I was around 5. If it doesnât in fact reflect real ages, as I assume many here believe, the phenomenon is still there, and I was (and am) very interested in what literary, cultural, or other any explanation there is. If hat seems a very legitimate inquiry. Iâd heard the creationist perspective, but in what I thought simple scientific/critical fashion, I wanted to seriously consider and explore all possible hypotheses. There simply was nothing about this request that should have been controversial.
But even with such a seemingly benign proposal for discussion, I found myself continually defending my motives from the assumptions or accusations that I was seeing something in the text that simply wasnât there due to my need to make the evidence fit my ulterior creationist agenda.
And so it felt to me that many felt far too eager to pounce on a suspected creationist idea and undermine it. I was specifically asking about literary or historical development of a phenomenon I saw in the text⌠but apparently, because I dared to notice this textual/ mathematical phenomenon, this was enough to be guilty of harboring a hidden creationist agenda.
If interesting to you for your discussion here, I found the same frustration when discussing brain size and intelligence. Obviously our brains seem quite optimized for the size they are, and if I understand rightly, there seems to be at least some correlation of size and intelligence within humans (though I note that correlation â causation, factors such as nutrition, etc., could underlie both). And, personally absolutely fascinating to me, is the fact that many extremely diminutive humans like Jyoti Amge seem to have no cognitive difficulty with their stunningly small brains. Speech, vocabulary, reading and auditory comprehension, etc., seem within the realm of normal human, in a brain somewhere about 1/4 of normal size if not smaller. Not to mention the âhobbitâ species that apparently had similar intelligence to us moderns with around 1/3 to 1/2 the brain size or so, as I recall.
And I thought that would be worth discussing, and again, relatively benign, as well⌠that these would have been facts relevant to the the core question of just how much brain size or cranial capacity was necessary for intelligence in human development or evolution. But I would have thought I had been defending a flat earth from the responses I received. Perhaps because it was perceived I was skeptical due to creationist or ID-sympathizing reasons or the like, or trying to undermine evolutionary theory? It baffles me, I was simply hypothesizing that humans could theoretically have evolved from a HCLCA and developed our modern intelligence even while maintaining a smaller brain. That seems at least a reasonable hypothesis, consistent with available facts. But I felt anathema for even suggesting such. And ID-sympathizer that I am, this wasnât even remotely an argument against the Darwinian paradigm.
To get back to your core question, I personally think there will be progress and gracious dialogue when everyone on all sides are genuinely willing to explore all evidence, and be willing to pursue any reasonable explanation, and be willing to question our own systems. These experiences, where I tried to discuss I something I thought relatively benign and more for my own simple interest, felt like they garnered a âcircle the wagonsâ reaction to defend a paradigm against the slightest perception of a criticism. This, on my side, does not seem to lead to gracious dialog from this evolution skeptic that generally loves to discuss the ideas and science and facts involved.
On the other hand, this Christian certainly does not feel able to dialogue openly about even basic benign facts of science or biblical text for fear of being ostracized by those within the âscientificâ community.
So if I might be so bold to reword and answer your earlier questionsâŚ
-
Personally, I think much attributable to methodological naturalism. Iâd be willing to explain further if you are interested, but adherence to that principle continues to dumbfound me even among the main Biologos articles. Philosophically, it is simple question-begging, to exclude certain otherwise logically valid potential conclusions from permissible consideration at the outset of an investigation. As such, it seems to me⌠anything that smells of someone proposing anything but a strictly naturalistic explanation for some phenomena is met with complete cynicism and complete dismissal. It is one thing to argue against an idea, another to dismiss an idea entirely as unworthy of discussion.
-
Be willing to acknowledge the scientific or rational reasons others have for their alternate convictions, rather than attributing their different beliefs automatically to problematic philosophical or religious reasons. Much (though certainly not all) argument Iâve encountered here against ID is a version of what CS Lewis called âBulverism.â Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.â as he noted, âyou can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponentâs psychology.â Note there is a subtle difference between this and #1 above⌠it is certainly appropriate to examine the stated and explicitly affirmed presuppositions or methods to see if they be problematic to scientific inquiry, but we ought not dismiss an idea because of what we believe about our opponentâs beliefs.
-
âSeek first to understand, then be understoodâ, is a great principle for constructive dialogue. I personally have seen ID proponents dismissed, when clearly their critic did not read, grasp, or give the argument anything like a fair hearing, and thus the criticism entirely misses the point. Granted, Iâve seen this on the other side as well.
I am. But perhaps on another thread as you may have interest or time. That is a topic that is perennially revisited here, and rightly so.
For what itâs worth, I think youâve shown exemplary patience among what many would probably think of as a critical, if not hostile audience for some of the views discussed. And I think we also must plead guilty as charged regarding having âhair-triggerâ reactions against what will often appear to be anti-evolutionary arguments of one or another kind. This forum can become something like a âWhack-a-moleâ exercise in the minds of those who have had to repeat necessary refutations many times, and then inevitably some proposal gets the mallet in an abrupt, unceremonious fashion. This is neither to condemn nor endorse such âmallet actionâ (it is often needed and appropriate), but only to say thanks for the reminder that there is often depth and nuance to questions and objections that we may pass over too easily.
I really appreciate your approach here, Daniel. We should all be so humble in questioning our assumptions.
I see this new feed you started is growing quite long. I havenât had chance to read through all of it yet, as I need to balance work and family responsibilities, but Iâll be interested to read more.
Thanks for your great reminders and helpful advice about how to be gracious as we have these conversations!!
And if interesting to take a case in point⌠Iâd mentionedâŚ
And right on cue, as if to illustrateâŚ
Yes, I could see how that comment would bother you. I guess we canât expect everyone to play by our rules. Part of gracious dialogue probably also includes doing our best not to get upset by posts like that. This is the 1st online forum Iâve participated it. Seems to be a very challenging format for graciousness. It has been useful for me to try to put myself in the shoes of someone with the opposite opinion as me: imagine why they might get upset by my opinion.
It is difficult in a forum like this. Since it is a discussion forum, you should expect ideas you put out for discussion to be dissected, critically discussed, and strongly disputed. As humans, we tend to integrate the positions we hold with our egos or our being, and attack on those ideas cannot help but feel like a personal attack on ourselves. Those in academics are more used to attacking and defending positions and not only tolerate it but enjoy it. Those of us in other fields, not so much.
If my comments when read in their full context are offensive, then I will apologize. It was not my intent in those comments to suggest particular conscious motivations to people; OTOH it was clearly my intent to talk about how discussions of MN felt and seemed to me as a Christian. I note, BTW, that the tired old quote about Bulverism from CSL is sadly ironic, since it is specifically about the motivations of others and is, unlike my quote-mined remarks, openly hostile.
Oh, man! you are taking back to my postdoc days: seeing people cursing, fuming and pacing in the hallway after a contentious conference session to âregainâ their cool.
My point, perhaps not well communicated, is that we need to have a bit of a tough skin when we enter these discussions and not take criticism personally, because it is the nature of things in a discussion forum.
While we need to be courteous to one another in our conversation, we also should be accountable for what we say. After all, iron sharpens iron. Wood only dulls the blade.
Good point, which leads me to wonder if thereâs ever a religious group that takes things relatively easy in discussionâprobably they vary a lot. I remember reading âThe Chosen,â one of my favorite booksâthe Hasidim called the relatively less straight laced folks âapikorsim,â a skeptic or apostate who has no part in the life to come. Define Apikorsim / Definition of Apikorsim / Dictionary. Guess it rises from our innate human desire for exactitudeâto blame a given group for that would be like blaming the dandelion flower for the root that produced it.
I remember Grand Rounds in surgery in med school, when the attendings seemed to think it their duty to harangue and heckle the residents in front of their fellowsâthank goodness that wasnât such a problem in primary care and internal med rounds.
I just listened to a FOTF podcast by Gary Thomas, who wrote a book with Evander Holyfield, who told him that boxers hug each other after a match because âyou canât take that personally!â Wow.