Intelligent Design is a theory of ignorance. There are few if any positive claims. Just “we don’t know…so goddidit.” Just basic God designer of the gaps.
2 Likes
What is the scientific theory of ID? How can it be tested? Who is the intelligent designer? How many designers are there? Is it possible that there are multiple designers? When did it/he/she/they do their designing? When did this take place?
1 Like
This is acceptable. ID theory is a theory. I won’t call it “ignorant” as if I’m above passing judgment, even if I think the “theory” is confused & incomplete.
“ID” just translates in ID-speak as “what God made”. And surely you’re not suggesting “what God made” is “a theory of ignorance”, since you believe in God’s existence, and in God as our Creator, right?
Darrel Falk attempted to clarify:
“All of us at BioLogos believe in intelligent design. Our reasons for distancing ourselves from the Intelligent Design movement is that we think various books and articles written by the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement do not represent good quality science. … In saying that ‘we at BioLogos believe in intelligent design,’ we would be using the term ‘design’ in the Oxford English Dictionary sense of the term: ‘mental plan, purpose, end in view, adaptation of means to an end’." (now removed, but quoted & visible here: Guest post: BioLogos embraces ID – Why Evolution Is True)
Of course, he wasn’t speaking on behalf of all Forum users, just for BioLogos leadership, it seems. Nice, in any case, that he didn’t choose to use words like “ignorant” regarding ID people. At least it’s being polite with one’s fellow religious opponents.
2 Likes
Yes, this is the main thrust of a somewhat recent sub-field called “evolutionary religious studies” - the naturalization of “religion” as an entirely “man-made” cultural evolutionary process, and its related marginalization in society. It is captured quite effectively (not to say agreeably!) in Stephen LeDrew’s “The Evolution of Atheism” (OUP, 2015) and Pascal Boyer’s “Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought” (Basic, 2001), among others. The kind of scholarship that applies “evolutionary theory” to religion at the hands of almost entirely atheist practitioners, isn’t just different from TE/EC, it is fundamentally opposed to BioLogos religion’s spiritual reality.
Matt Ridley speaks of morality, technology, money & religion using this language: “The way in which these streams of human culture flow is gradual, incremental, undirected, emergent and driven by natural selection among competing ideas.” BioLogos isn’t promoting this version of “cultural evolution of religion” is it?
LeDrew states that the repeated usage of “evolution”, not in biology, but in cultural fields as a way of normalizing what they all believe is the non-participation of God, since evolution with “natural selection” as a quasi-agent can do everything on its own, is the “new atheist’s” strongest tool against religion in contemporary society. In this, they agree entirely with the ID movement’s warning.
Does BioLogos position itself against the people, almost entirely atheists, who promote “evolutionary religious studies”?
To the extent that anybody wants to use such studies as tools for dismissing religion or dismissing any possibility of the transcendent beyond ourselves … I think it’s safe to say that any Christian organization, including Biologos, would not resonate with that.
But I also think one can study religion - even explain significant parts of it - without that necessarily becoming dismissive of the same. Also - very few sober-minded scientific thinkers (whether Christian or not) would claim something so pretentious as “can explain everything on its own”. Maybe in carelessly casual conversation or in moments of extreme hyperbole. I can’t think of a better science-stopper than the claim: “It’s all now been explained.”
Since you’re a Moderator here, Mervin, I won’t press. Your generalization in this case, unfortunately, doesn’t answer my specific question (Does BioLogos position itself against the people, almost entirely atheists, who promote “evolutionary religious studies?). Be welcome to try again if you wish.
Evidence for BioLogos invited authors positioning BioLogos as being against “evolutionary religious studies” should be available to support a simple “Yes” answer in BioLogos archives, so there’s no reason to argue about it. Please simply point to such evidence (names of authors, texts, etc.) of BioLogos actively positioning itself against evolutionary religious studies, as you are familiar with the archive. In addition to “resonance” being expected, what is the written evidence to show for this positioning?
Otherwise, “No,” from what I have up to now read in the archive, seems to be a more accurate answer regarding BioLogos’ lack of activity produced against evolutionary religious studies so far. Most of BioLogos’ attention seems to be directed at young earth creationism and creationists, then a secondary concern is Intelligent Design theory and apologetics. Is that not the case?
Forgive, as I do not wish to argue, just explore. And there’s no argument against evidence, so please just link to BioLogos’ activity that it seems you are now suggesting “is real”. I will be most pleased to discover this real activity against evolutionary religious studies in the archive from BioLogos leaders. That way we can seek the truth together. Thanks.
Given that some people haven’t heard of the sub-field of “evolutionary religious studies”, and there are even those who deny that such a sub-field with a bunch of people working actively in it at universities, institutes, and foundations, is “real”, this article from 2017 should be informative. https://evolution-institute.org/evolutionary-religious-studies-comes-of-age/
Press as hard as you want. I’m just another participant here most of the time.
Okay - well here’s my short answer (subject to any needed correction by those who actually do have the authority to more officially represent Biologos.): No. Biologos does not “position itself against” people, atheists or otherwise, based on what they are studying. Why would they?
If you are meaning to ask something more like: “Does Biologos position itself against the notion that evolutionary religious studies are a threat to religion” - I would still answer ‘no’ (though perhaps on somewhat more shaky ground.)
If you further asked: "Does Biologos position itself against the conviction that ‘to explain religion in evolutionary terms is to refute all claims of that religion’, then I think we could move into ‘yes’ territory. Or at least I can’t imagine how any religious organization could fully agree with that particular, and very reductive use of any religious studies.
2 Likes
What I actually said was that ID is a theory of ignorance. I think it’s true. The idea proposed is that some things we find in nature are irreducibly complex and therefore could not possiblly have evolved without the direct involvement of an intelligent designer. Some of the structures proposed include the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. Don’t even bother looking for an evolutionary explanation, because you won’t find it. It was created in one fell swoop! For that reason, ID is often also called a “science stopper.” (But when the structures are examined by scientists, they have an evolutionary explanation after all.) ID advocates like to claim that the identification of the designer doesn’t matter, but that’s because they want ID taught in the science classroom.
As for Darrell Falk, He was trying to distinguish between inteligent design (lower case) and the Intelligent Design Movement which was started by Phillip Johnson and counts among its champions Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, etc.
I actually know a lot about ID. I even attended an ID debate in the city at the American Museum of Natural History quite a while ago. It included Ken Miller and Robert Pennock on the side of science, with Bill Dembski and Michael Behe on the side of Intellient Design. It was moderated by Genie Scott.
I will try to post a link.
A true transitional fossil!
I dug up a video of the Great Debate!
The scene: the American Museum of Natural History. The topic: “Blind evolution or Intelligent Design”. Introduction by Richard Milner. The moderator: Genie Scott. Event date: 4/23/2002
That was 18 years ago, but I remember it well. The auditorium was packed.
Hey, might as well listen to these guys in their own words, right? It’s in several parts.
Note that this took place before the Dover trial. Note also that it is NOT NOT NOT atheism vs Intelligent Design: Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic and Robert Pennock is a Quaker.
The Great Debate, Part I: Miller & Pennock vs. Dembski & Behe
The Great Debate, Part 2: Michael Behe makes his case
The Great Debate, Part 3: Miller & Pennock respond
Trouble is, you can’t hear questions in the Q&A at the end. I do remember one question from an audience member. He asked, “why design all this and then send meteors to earth to destroy it all?”
Amazing. That probably makes you unique, like 1/50,000. Did you do a PhD and have you published about your rejection of ID theory in peer reviewed science or “science & faith” journals? Or are you an amateur blog opponent of ID theory with minimal “scientific” training?
You say you “know a lot about ID”. I’m curious how you tested yourself to reach that conclusion.
How can one actually “know a lot about ID”? Does someone have to read a certain amount of ID theory books, or articles in journals, at Biologic Institute, or on the Discovery Institute’s websites, like Evolution News & Views, to “know a lot about ID”? They have a course on ID theory at the Discovery Institute - did you take that, which probably teaches it best? (Just not sure bragging that one knows a lot about ID theory is a compliment or reason to worry.)
Does one have to actually write and publish about ID theory, after going through a step by step blind peer review, demonstrating one’s ideas can withstand the careful editorial scrutiny that blog moderation doesn’t provide? In other words, how do you actually know you “know a lot about ID”? I’ve never heard a non-IDist say that.
Sorry if I don’t find calling ID theory “a theory of ignorance” (about which one can possess knowledge) as very constructive or offering a mutually beneficial positive way forward. It sounds like how anti-theists & atheists critique ID peoples’ words, not with gracious dialogue, but with mockery & condescension. No salt & light?
Meanwhile, other people who say different things about ID theory than you are currently saying here, I find to be worth listening to and indeed quite convincing. Perhaps @cristero, who asked in OP for references about ID = God’s Design (Creation) of the world, not arguments against ID theory, might benefit from being free to explore for her/himself.
Not really. How did you come by your 1/50,000 estimate?
Did you earn a PhD and publish about your rejection of evolution in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
I added links to The Great Debate because I thought you’d like to hear professional arguments against ID. Why not listen to it?.
btw, articles about ID by ID folks rarely get published in real scientific journals.
I suppose I will try and recruit some people. Hey @sfmatheson. We are discussing Intelligent Design and I figured you might have some thoughts. (!)
This guy wants to marshal forces against “evolutionary religious studies,” and is obnoxiously rude to you while sanctimoniously chanting “salt and light.” Pearls before swine.
But I’m glad to note that you know a lot about ID, and deserve a lot more respect than our taunting self-anointed expert.
1 Like
BioLogos is an advocacy organization that promotes the harmony of Christian faith and mainstream science primarily to an Evangelical audience. Positioning itself against atheists is not the mission. BioLogos focuses on areas of science that are misepresented or misunderstood by Evangelicals and areas of theology that are debated in Evangelical circles. (Vaccines, coming soon…) To my knowledge, Evangelicals are not all that persuaded by evolutionary religious studies, so there is no pressing need to take a position against it. There has been some discussion of general New Atheist claims, but more focused on the conflict thesis, since that would be something BioLogos does take a position against. The closest thing I can think of that relates to the evolution of religion would be the podcast with the interview of Justin Barrett.
Thanks everyone for the replies and discussion. I’m not going to reply here for a while as I have a lot to research and look up. It is all a bit overwhelming but not in a bad way. The fact that there are so many sides to this debate and points of view make it difficult for me as a layperson to navigate. I hear intelligent people on all sides - Evolutionary Creation, Intelligent Design, atheist evolutionists, even intelligent Creationists! (No offense creationists). I have to say I’m still compelled by the Intelligent Design arguments so I think what I’m going to do is go away and research more about what they have to say, and then consider the arguments against their positions from creation evolutionists.
PS - Are there any good debates online of Intelligent Designers Vs Evolutionary Creationists?
1 Like
Science as a tool of rationality is perfectly correct to dismiss the transcendent. There is only subjective evidence for it; desire, and for Christianity there is the writings and history of the Church from within 20 years of its claimed cause. Both of which are valid of course, but up against physicalism - which of course explains everything on its own; nothing is missing - they have no scientific chance.
If this were true, then science is all done. Washed up. Careers over. Nothing left to do there. But we know that isn’t even close to true, even just limiting our view to scientifically accessible things. And how much less true when asking non-scientific questions?
I think the best science can do is just remain silent on such things that are beyond empirical accessibility. ‘Dismissing’ anything transcendent is to go beyond what any evidence can support.
I recommend reading Dembski’s first book “The Design Inference” published by Cambridge. Good clear writing, and not too mathy. I think that book alone is sufficient to make you an expert in ID theory.
1 Like
That’s helpful to know. Thanks. It reveals a surprising gap and helps to frame the BioLogos contribution or particular voice in the broader conversation.
Perhaps it makes sense to see anti-atheism (my typing error, not anti-atheists) as part of BioLogos’ mission, speaking out against godlessness and those who attack theology in “science & faith” conversations, even if indirectly, and to be gracious in doing so. It’s an offence/defense thing, and both sides count. Perhaps BioLogos not directly addressing the undeniably huge blow that “evolutionary religious studies” has dealt to religion and religious people in the USA, which BioLogos claims it is defending, may be comparable to how the Discovery Institute, while 98% of DI leaders accept an Old Earth in line with the current mainstream scientific consensus, at the same time, they refuse to take an official position about the age of the Earth.
BioLogos mission differs. It wants every evangelical to believe “not thousands, but millions of years” about age of Earth. Young Earth = less smart/unaware/biblical literalistic, Old Earth = smarter/aware/more mature biblical exegesis; it’s pretty much as simple as that. Anti-YEC is one of the primary missions here, as I understand it. Yes?
That differs from age of Adam and Eve, if they were real figures, which is what the recent discussion is about involving Buggs, Swamidass vs. Gauger vs. RTB vs. AiG vs. Venema & BioLogos. Discovery Institute’s “theory” is actually a philosophical one that still operates regardless if the Earth is old, or if, somehow crazily against what the vast majority of scientific evidence nowadays seems to show, it is “young(er).”
The traditional, historical argument to/from design as apologetics tool is not erased by DI insisting it can “scientifically infer God’s completed action in the world”.The ones demanding a strictly scientific result from a philosophy, not a science, aren’t surprisingly going to be disappointed with anything the DI says. The conversation partners are simply speaking to each others’ gaps, while onlookers watch, usually puzzled by the jargon & expertise involved.