ID Censors Their Own

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jay313

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?

@Jay313

The plight of the ID proponent is:

1. He feels that some biological solutions are so perfect, it has to be God’s work.

2. But he is Unwilling to admit that all the other biological solutions that are sub-par, less than perfect or glorious, are good reasons to see God REJECTING a consistent approach to Perfect Creation - - which is consistent with an evolutionary view for the Earth in general.

Ideally, ID proponents should all be BioLogos supporters!

But most ID’s can’t stomach admitting that the Earth is billions of years old.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Swamidass

So you are arguing for Vitalism? That living things operate by different physical laws than and fundamental forces than the inanimate world?

@Swamidass

Aren’t all Creationists “Vitalists”?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@gbrooks9

But most ID’s can’t stomach admitting that the Earth is billions of years old.

Yep, they can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge the age of the earth. That alone shows they are not doing science.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Yep, they can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge the age of the earth. That alone shows they are not doing science.

@Jonathan_Burke, ah!, maybe this is the simplest explanation for the conflict that dominates much of @Eddie 's conversation on these boards!

I believe he thinks that BioLogos should honor ID discussions more … but it is really the ID discussions that should be honoring Biologos more.

We specify that the Biblical God is the creator … and we specify that God’s participation in creation involves millions of years - - while ID proponents seem to think we should be impressed with their more general and maddeningly more vague discussions … with apparently just one thing in mind: that there is a creator - - but they just don’t know what kind of creator it is or how long the creator took to create.

If BioLogos were to drift towards ID narrative, it looks like it would be a giant step backward!

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@gbrooks9

but it is really the ID discussions that should be honoring Biologos more.

Exactly. ID should be taking regular non-ID scientists more seriously, since they’re the ones actually doing real science and making discoveries and achievements as a result. In contrast, ID scientists are making as much progress in science as Ken Ham.

@gbrooks9

If BioLogos were to drift towards ID narrative, it looks like it would be a giant step backward!

Indeed. Back to a pre-Galileo era.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@deliberateresult

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

I really do appreciate the effort @deliberateresult, so I really am taking this seriously.

@deliberateresult

So again, as the most reasonable causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life, what specific evidence do you cite?

The most reasonable causal explanation is that God (not an unnamed designer) created us. The evidence I have for this is…

1. the profound fine tuning of the cosmos that is required for evolution to be able to operate.
2. the stunning fact that, even if it is true (as I believe) that evolution could produce the human mind.

I want to point out that both these points are within the range of acceptable scientific consensus, so this is not an argument about data, but a recognition of a pointer to something grander than science. This also is scientific “evidence” in the best sense; it is largely undisputed. Moreover, it does not depend on evolution being wrong. Rather, it calls attention to the fact that if evolution produced us, the main question is left unanswered. Who created evolution? So the theology here seems more stable and, I’ve been told by theologians, is more correct.

Is this a bridge between us? I hope so?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Where BioLogos defenders say something that is true – that God created the world, that God is free to create in any way that he wants (including by miracles), that God is sovereign over the results of evolution, that God knows the future, that design can be seen in nature (all of which some BioLogos supporters here have on occasion said) – ID people should agree and not complain. But if BioLogos defenders say or imply that God would create only through natural laws, that God either can’t or doesn’t determine the results of evolution, that God can’t or doesn’t know the future, that design can’t be seen in nature except through the eyes of faith, that design inferences are ruled out by science (all of which some BioLogos supporters have said or implied), ID people are not obliged to “honor” such positions. They should of course treat the writers respectfully in their verbal response, but aren’t required to accept the theology or epistemology or history of science implied in such statements.

@Eddie

I was eating out of your hands… until you said this:

“…that design can’t be seen in nature except through the eyes of faith,…”

“seen” is an equivocable term … if by “seen” you mean “proved” - - buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - - game over !!!

If by “seen” you mean “the appearance” - - I’m still eating out of your hands… unless of course you left out the “millions of years” part on purpose - - then you lost me again…

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

Those critics of ID who claim that they have only ID’s best interests at heart need to make their argument in the form of: “I don’t think that particular argument for design holds up, because … however, I think you could make a stronger case for design if you focused on …”

I think you could make a stronger case for design if you focused on empirical testing of ID hypotheses. That is how real science progresses.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

Instead of saying or implying that the whole ID position is “bad science” you could suggest that particular ID arguments do not appear to hold up to scientific scrutiny – and specify the particular ID arguments that you have in mind.

The whole ID position is not science at all. ID proponents are responsible for holding their hypotheses up to scientific scrutiny–in science, that means empirical testing of hypotheses, not debate.

When will that start, Eddie?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:55, topic:5625”]
While I both appreciate and share your your positions on the universe and the Resurrection, the issue here specifically concerns the evidence for life.[/quote]
I’m not seeing that you’re interested in the evidence when you’re devoting so much effort to arguing that metaphors should be taken literally.

[quote]So again, as the most reasonable causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life, what specific evidence do you cite?
[/quote]I can’t answer for Swamidass, but as the most reasonable explanation for an “RNA World” that preceded modern life, I cite the evidence that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme.

Shall we consider evidence or words? Have you ever considered this important piece of evidence?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

though, these same individuals never object to the use of the term “proved” when an EC or atheist commenter here uses it; only when an ID or creationist commenter does. But double standards are standard around here, and I’m used to them.)

@Eddie,

This is not an un-justified double-standard. Using evidence from science to “prove” God’s existence is a notoriously bad idea.

“Inferred” is a good word !

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@benkirk

I can’t answer for Swamidass, but as the most reasonable explanation for an “RNA World” that preceded modern life, I cite the evidence that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme.

Shall we consider evidence or words? Have you ever considered this important piece of evidence?

Please enlighten me. I am wallowing in ignorance over here!

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Eddie

There is a thoughtful discussion on machines, languages, codes, and related matters at:

Information, language, code | The Hump of the Camel

I think some BioLogos readers might enjoy it, as a follow-up on the discussion here. One can sign up and add comments there.

thanks Eddie!

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Swamidass

The most reasonable causal explanation is that God (not an unnamed designer) created us. The evidence I have for this is…

the profound fine tuning of the cosmos that is required for evolution to be able to operate.
the stunning fact that, even if it is true (as I believe) that evolution could produce the human mind.

I want to point out that both these points are within the range of acceptable scientific consensus, so this is not an argument about data, but a recognition of a pointer to something grander than science. This also is scientific “evidence” in the best sense; it is largely undisputed. Moreover, it does not depend on evolution being wrong. Rather, it calls attention to the fact that if evolution produced us, the main question is left unanswered. Who created evolution? So the theology here seems more stable and, I’ve been told by theologians, is more correct.

Is this a bridge between us? I hope so?

I think it can be. I am very grateful that you are taking this seriously. As for me, I am really trying to understand your position more precisely because I remain confident that there is an important area of agreement that we have not reached yet. So when you talk about “the fine tuning of the cosmos that is required for evolution to be able to operate,” can you clarify for me whether you are talking about cosmic evolution, biological evolution, or both?

Thanks.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Jay313

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?

demonstrably so. My entire argument here has been that ID offers the best causal explanation; to wit, all known life is maintained by advanced data processing systems which prescribe technologically brilliant molecular machinery. The only known cause of both is intelligent agency

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@benkirk

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.

what are racketing mechanisms if not machines?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@benkirk

The whole ID position is not science at all. ID proponents are responsible for holding their hypotheses up to scientific scrutiny–in science, that means empirical testing of hypotheses, not debate.

Do you believe that origin of life science can properly be called science?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@benkirk

I’m not seeing that you’re interested in the evidence when you’re devoting so much effort to arguing that metaphors should be taken literally.

Forgive me for being guilty of the courtesy of responding to challenges from you, Jay and others, which have lately focused almost exclusively on whether genetic code is code by definition or analogy. If you prefer that I ignore you, I will be happy to oblige. [quote=“benkirk, post:73, topic:5625”]
I can’t answer for Swamidass, but as the most reasonable explanation for an “RNA World” that preceded modern life, I cite the evidence that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme.
[/quote]

no, peptidyl transferase is an enzyme which functions in the rybozome. But if you are claiming that the “RNA World” hypothesis is a better causal explanation for the origin of life, we could have that conversation.