The written word has limitations that the spoken word does not 
Like I said, Jay, you have to ignore a good bit of my post to reach the conclusions you reached. And it appears you still hold them. So be it. Rather than rehash things, let me refer you to my recent post to dr. Swamidass.
1 Like
No because I was wise enough not to go public in high school and college.
Well, my friends and family would tell you that I advocated among them.
Thanks for not accusing me of lying.
I’m just asking my truthful story to be taken seriously in the same way I take other’s stories seriously. For example, John Sanford is an ID advocate that shifted from being an evolutionist to being an ID advocating YEC for why he describes as scientific reasons. Of course his path is rare, but I believe him.
And at no point do I (or I assume @DennisVenema) claim that we were vocal famous ID supporters.
I mainly point my history to emphasize that from the start I was biased towards ID and YEC arguments. And I am a Christian still. I do not feel it is fair to say that I dismiss ID arguments because I am biased against them. That just does not match my history or my current ideological position. I’m a Christian after all, and I agree that God designed us. That makes me biased to agree with ID arguments.
Now that I am a scientist, it is much harder for me to accept what looks like bad science to me. That is one real reason, for me, that I ended up leaving ID.
Good question. The answer? Wisdom.
I remember reaching out to Behe in 1998, and his advice to me was to be silent about any misgivings I had about scientific a consensus till I really knew what I thought, and I was ready to bear the real consequences of it. That was really good advice, and this is one of the reasons I still appreciate him to this day.
I took that advice. It was really good advice. It gave me time to learn and understand more clearly what the science said and what the arguments were on both sides. I started out on the ID side of things, and very skewed YEC (because that was my upbringing).
Then I got an education in computational biology. Mind you, this was before bioinformatics became so central to ID. That changed my view of most of the science and put me in the awkward position of immediately recognizing bad informatics arguments against evolution for what they were, and also gave me the advantage of being able to directly look at the evidence myself. That made all the difference.
Even after I shifted, I kept Behe’s advice in mind. I decided I wanted to be certain where I stood on all these issues, and know as many people behind the scences as I could. Only after I knew what I stood for, and the risks involved, did I start to be more publically engaged. That all started in 2012, and slowly grew from there.
So, you are right. Most young people shoot off their mouths and say stupid things. I am certainly inclined that way. I am just lucky I got very wise advice, that I chose to follow.
3 Likes
This is pretty offensive. This was not an attempt by me. This is an article writing by Torley, not me, for his purpose not mine.
How in the world is his article some how morphed into my deliberate attempt to strike a blow against ID?
And Torley is a bright guy, who thinks for himself. We have never met in person or even talked on the phone. Why would you think that a few blog interactions are enough to color him as so biased? If that were true, geez, I am one of nearly supernatural persuasive ability. The real question is why I haven’t convinced the whole world to agree with me yet.
That being said, I don’t think you are being intentionally mean in this. I think this is pretty standard human behavior, to question the motives of those of those with whom we disagree. So we can move on… =)
1 Like
There is something rather than nothing, that something had a beginning, and somehow something amazing as the human mind has arisen from it. Even if evolution is true, this doesn’t explain how a universe exists where evolution is possible. This all begs for an explanation. Science has none.
And then God answers by making himself known by rising Jesus from the dead. From His self revelation, I find that God identifies Himself as the creator of everything.
This together is more than enough evidence for me.
2 Likes
So you are arguing for Vitalism? That living things operate by different physical laws than and fundamental forces than the inanimate world?
I do not mean this in a pejorative sense, but an honest question. Such a position would put you very far afield from the current view in science. It would be an example of how you are claiming more than that ID is the best causal explanation. You would also be claiming that life has different laws of physics and chemistry.
Where do you stand on that?
1 Like
Point taken. I should have rephrased that to something like…
Now that I am a scientist, it is hard for me to accept positions that seem like bad science to me.
Does that seem more fair?
1 Like
My, my, it didn’t take long to return to silly. So now to be an ID proponent is to believe in the four tempers and humors. Who is impugning who here? Nevertheless, I will oblige you:
To say that ID is the best causal explanation is to say that the evidence points to the necessity of a Creator - an “Intelligent Designer.” It is to say that purely natural processes do not provide an adequate causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life. Intelligent agents routinely orchestrate, control, and manipulate events and circumstances to produce intentional results. Many physical effects bear what we would say is an unmistakable signature of intelligent agency. We do not say that smart phones, for example, require “different laws of physics and chemistry,” when we quite reasonably note that purely natural processes do not constitute a causally adequate explanation for this particular physical effect.
But then, this is ID 101; something anyone who used to be an ID advocate would readily understand. As Eddie has pointed out,
" It comes across as: “Stupid people are fooled by ID arguments, but we smart people aren’t.” And that is hardly the attitude you want to project if your goal is – as you repeatedly claim – bridge-building"
It seems to me that when you ask an ID proponent if he believes that people are machines because he cites the brilliance of the molecular machinery of life as evidence for intelligent agency, this is exactly what Eddie is talking about. it seems to me that when you ask an ID proponent if he is a vitalist because he believes that purely natural processes alone are incapable of producing life, this is exactly what Eddie is talking about.
Maybe your question was an honest one. If so, it might be time to reflect a little bit on how rationally and fairly you really view the ID position these days.
Hehe, this is getting silly. I didn’t mean that all ID people believe in the four humors. That certainly is not true. I can see how this might have seemed that way. I am sorry, that was not my intent.
Rather, I am saying that it seems like you are saying, “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because the are governed by different principles than are inanimate things.”
Let’s back up a lot here. This is not what illicited this statement from me.
Rather, you said…
And also…
I’m just saying that humans are not just machines. That the only difference between us and machines is not that we are not technologically advanced.
Come to think of it, maybe I am the vitalist here =).
While I both appreciate and share your your positions on the universe and the Resurrection, the issue here specifically concerns the evidence for life. Allow me to gently remind you of my original question and your response:
"ID has not been offered as a “proof” by either Axe or me or anyone in the ID movement. All it needs to be is the most reasonable causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life based on the evidence. And that is all we are saying.
If this was all you were saying I would agree with you"
So again, as the most reasonable causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life, what specific evidence do you cite? I ask you this in an effort to get to a crucial area of agreement between you and I, from which we could perhaps put a more substantive conversation on the table; bridge-building, if you will
There seems to be really concern about my efforts to build bridges. I will say a few things here…
- Building bridges does not require accepting the scientific position of those with whom we disagree.
- I am not always a peaceful person, though I try to be, because Jesus calls me to. So I mistakes here, frequently.
- If you see me doing it wrong, I encourage you to do me better by demonstrating to us all how to love seek peace and love your enemies better than I. That is an example I want to follow.
3 Likes
… like this.
[quote=“Swamidass, post:52, topic:5625”]
Most people who support ID are not well trained in science and do not even understand what science is. In fact there are ID supporters who are well trained in science who can’t even agree what science is, and who are prepared to accept so broad a definition of “science” as to include astrology (which is definitely nothing like science). As a scientist, I am too well trained to accept as “science”, what is really theology in pseudo-scientific trappings.
There are people who support ID and who are well trained in science. They often practice a discernibly alarming level of compartmentalism to insulate what they believe from what they learned during their scientific training. That’s bad science, and I don’t have to apologize for saying so.[/quote]
2 Likes
@Jon_Garvey
Very thought-provoking, Jon. I’ll cross-post this to BioLogos for the benefit of the conversants over there. Overall, I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but I think it is not necessary to your argument (and by extension, the ID argument) to push the analogy of code, whether computer or DNA, so far that it becomes identical to human language. Philosophy has relied from the beginning on analogy to reason about and clarify concepts. The fact that computer code, a human design, and DNA, a “natural design,” share remarkable similarities certainly raises questions with teleological implications. However, I fail to see how the teleological argument is strengthened in any way by insisting that either code (computer or DNA) is identical to human language. The analogy is a strong case on its own. Why insist that it is more than analogy? Actually, I think such identification weakens the argument by opening it up to a wide range of criticisms that distract from the main question: Do the similarities between computer code and DNA code imply design?
In any case, I would also question whether language is a correct analogy in the first place. To my understanding, both computer code and DNA code are more analogous as algorithms, a set of instructions to achieve a desired (intentional!) result. In fact, if both are algorithms by definition, this is where the human invention and its natural analog are most nearly identical and should be compared, not in their resemblance to language. Perhaps the problem stems from the fact that many ID theorists want to characterize their arguments as “science” rather than philosophy? I don’t know. Maybe you have a different take.
(Skipping some of my post at Camel’s Hump that wouldn’t make sense if you didn’t read Jon’s article…)
In concluding the article, you said, “Remember that science, operating under methodological naturalism, has no authority to comment either way on “meaning”, or lack of it, in DNA even at the relatively simple level of teleological function. But as Christians, if we believe that Christ the Logos is the source of the creation of all things, including living entities, what do we mean by excluding the existence of a true information function within the mechanisms we know to be involved in the evolution and development of life? What basis do we have for such an assertion?”
The heart of your question involves “excluding the existence of a true information function.” If computer code contains true information function, and computer code is a direct analogy to DNA code, doesn’t that demonstrate the existence of a true information function in DNA? Why make the unnecessary leap from computer code to language?
2 Likes
This is true, but I see a lot of the flip-side, as well. Plenty of people act as if every single ID argument is valid.
I’m going to throw up a big “Yield” sign here in regard to the phrase “most reasonable causal explanation.” The ID arguments that I have seen do not attempt any sort of causal explanation. Rather, they attempt to show that the competing explanation (evolution) is not reasonable. Am I wrong in this?
3 Likes
Yeah they never actually attempt to provide any positive case. Once “irreducible complexity” died, they had pretty much nothing, so all they’ve been doing since is repeating the claim that “evolution can’t explain X”. Typical god of the gaps arguments.
2 Likes
Here’s another example for Joe:
Dyneins, kinesics, and myosins are called “molecular motors.” However, what we now know about their mechanisms from decades of biochemical and biophysical studies is that a far more accurate metaphor is “molecular ratchets.”
However, the initial metaphor remains the usual way to refer to the field.
Joe, here’s the part that you’re missing: if scientists took metaphors as seriously as you do, they wouldn’t have been able to decipher these ratcheting mechanisms.
Metaphors and analogies always break down. That doesn’t mean they are ineffective as communication tools. Joe, you seem to be putting words far above actual evidence.
2 Likes