Intelligent Design makes more sense than BioLogos

@MATT

It’s been a couple of hours now, so I’m hoping you are feeling less tense and anxious. I have picked out 4 parts of one of your longer posts and I thought you’d appreciate a little feedback on what you write and how you write it.

Point [1] You have accused BioLogos of dishonesty. And your evidence is apparently because Ted Davis and Venema (you say) called William Lane Craig a ‘creationist’. So what else would any of us call him?

Especially when in Point [2] you say he does not bow before Darwin. Well, ahem, sir, what else would you have him called then? The usual polarity is Atheistic Darwinists on one side of the room… and Faithful Devoted Creationists on the other side. I don’t think you have made your point about your accusations of dishonesty. So, I should give you advance notice that I’m perfectly delighted to flag a post when I think the post is dissembling or prevaricating. You will need to be more precise in the future.

Point [3] is where you cite Dennett, sometimes called one of the 4 Horsemen of modern Atheism, and attempt to taint BioLogos with his Atheistic attitudes. This is an unfair charge, but in this case you were careful to make it into more of an anecdote. I hope you have it out of your system now … because I will be reading your posts fairly closely from now on.

And finally, Point [4], where you are either very unaware of BioLogos’s Mission Statements, or you are just being belligerent. BioLogos invokes the name and reality of God throughout its discussion and research on the Evolutionary sciences. It is no more Atheistic than a Christian weather forecaster talking about warm fronts and cold fronts and the providential nature of God to provide rain.

If you need someone to discuss the BioLogos Mission Statements please ask. For I will definitely report any repetition of your charges of Atheism to the administrators of these boards. You can’t walk into a Synagogue and call the Rabbi’s atheists … and you can’t do it here either.

2 Likes

@Matt,

Help us out…

You accuse people of calling Creationists … well… Creationists.

You call Christians who support Evolution Atheists.

You defend certain parties known for being I.D. proponents.

Okay, I give up… how do you describe your position? If you plan to post here for any amount of time, your readers will need to know where you stand.

1 Like

Really? The last thing I heard was that he was convinced that Morality could be described from game theory.

That’s not correct: QM is consistent with fully deterministic physics. It’s just inconsistent with fully deterministic local physics.

Classical Mechanics is not compatible with fully deterministic physics. There is no such thing as fully deterministic physics. Even modern textbooks on Classical Mechanics add determinism as an additional axiom. As for the rest of that sentence I have no idea what you are talking about.

Randomness here means that 1) the specific mutations are not predictable by humans, and 2) there is no physical mechanism by which the needs of the organism can direct which mutations occur.

That is my point on direct issues of evolution and Christianity TE offers nothing. For example I can assume that the space I am working in is continuous and ignore QM but there is still a fact of the matter as too is my space is discrete or not; or when I calculate the orbit of say the satellite Hyperion. I will miss out my dog, but if my dog was suddenly to disappear that would effect Hyperion. If God is directing mutations or not there it is still a matter of fact and detectable in some way perhaps by fine-tuning. By the way if the mutations are not random that is not Darwin evolution. Darwin wrote to Asa Gray that his directed evolution was not Darwin’s theory. My hope is that one day evolutionary biology will become a true physical theory with a mathematical structure and an interpretation.
In addition you are missing out the fact that evolutionary psychology and evolutionary Cognitive Science of Religion are hardening to a consensus that religious belief is a cognitive mistake.

Matt’s in time out, so you don’t need to waste time responding to his posts. Have a nice evening everyone. :relaxed:

4 Likes

@MATT

You seem to be all over the map in your discussions. You say TE offers nothing, but I don’t believe anyone thinks TE is supposed to offer anything to the field of Quantum Mechanics.

You protest that if mutations are driven by God (rather than random) then that is not Darwin’s Evolution. Well, no kidding! We spend most of our time around here explaining that to the people who think we are a bunch of Atheists.

Matt, are you an atheist? You say you want Evolutionary Biology to become a Physical Theory (not a metaphysical one?) … and that you seem to be gloating about a “hardening” of consensus that religious belief is a cognitive mistake. It sounds very much like that is your position as well. That would explain why you came ripping through here, hours earlier, complaining about people calling other people Creationists; it would seem clear that you think the term “Creationists” is a terrible slur!

For most of us here, BioLogos is not here to celebrate Darwin’s of Godless evolution. We are here to build a bridge between Evolutionary evidence and Biblical interpretation.

Why are you here?

I can think of a couple of phrases: the first would be “fine-tuning”, for those who want to make it sound a good idea. The second would be “determinism” for those who want to diss the idea!

You may notice that either word has to be qualified as to degree, since your concept leaves BIG areas in which God apparently alters the game plan. For example, answering prayers on a large enough scale would affect “natural” (front-loaded) outcomes, so how much is God “allowed” to do of that? And on what principle does God leave certain parts of his world alone, and act within others (and has anyone informed him of the rules?)?

Taking a simplistic line that “most” of the world’s history would be loaded into the initial creation, what one is actually saying is that all such things are governed by autonomous laws of “nature”. That being so, the entire show should be amenable to the scientific method if one once discovers all the laws. One can, for example, follw cause and effect backwards and show that mankind was an inevitable product of nature.

That, I suppose, gives plenty of scope for science - in fact the whole idea is scientifically falsifiable, which is unusual for a doctrine of divine action. But surely at present it is only a faith position, as there is no scientific evidence that the world is so lawlike. Within our generation, Stephen Jay Gould has claimed that running the clock on evolution again would produce a different result, and his arch-rival on the matter, Simon Conway Morris, champions convergence as a kind of general principle of evolution, not a deterministic process.

My discussion with Christy was not, in fact, about “gods” v “aliens”, but about “proof”, which I’m not aware of anyone in the ID movement claiming to offer. I was simply trying to get people to engage with the position as it is, rather than a straw man, which will lead me to the reply to your later post to me…

Nope. Plenty of ID proponents have come into this forum and made hundreds of posts without being banned. One has even, if I am not mistaken, made over 1000 posts.

That is strong empirical evidence, sir, that your generalization from a single anecdote (your own experience) is unwarranted.

Based on your inflammatory, extraordinarily harsh words and accusations, I’m guessing…let me take a stab in the dark… you violated the forum rules about speaking graciously toward others.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

4 Likes

I confess I haven’t read the whole thread - but my reaction is to say that the BioLogos view is that God is active through every bit of creation - it is a continual act of his, not restricted to a few blips along the way as ID would claim. I happen to believe that He intervenes in lots of other ways as well - my church prays a lot for healing, and we see a lot of healing too. So I am miles from believing in a God who set it all in motion and then just let it run. But scientifically, I don’t think the model of him doing one act, then another after a long or short stretch of time… and then another … makes any sense (scientifically or philosophically). I think he is far more involved in his creation than that. And what we describe as mutations etc. is just his method of working! It is all God’s work and he could have done it any way he liked, but the scientific evidence seems to point to an account within the BioLogos range of beliefs.

Have you ever seen a disturbed person visit a religious blog and convince people of some idea by throwing a temper tantrum? Neither have I.

4 Likes

@beaglelady

I’m still trying to figure out what position he was defending …

1 Like

He is famously a practicing Catholic. In 2014 he was awarded the Laetare medal by Notre Dame University, a Catholic university. Even BioLogos mentioned this in their news. ID creationists love to trash him. Perhaps because in their eyes people like him aren’t supposed to exist.

The University of Notre Dame has named Kenneth Miller, professor of biology, the 2014 recipient of the Laetare Medal, the oldest and most prestigious honor among American Catholics. “Kenneth Miller has given eloquent and incisive witness both to scientific acumen and religious belief,” said the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame’s president. "As an accomplished biologist and an articulate believer, he pursues two distinct but harmonious vocations and illustrates how science and faith can mutually flourish.”

1 Like

Wasn’t it ID creationism? If only that energy could be channeled into research…

1 Like

Well put, Chris. Vigorous and active discussion about topics is desired and encouraged. Discourtesy is not. My impression is that Biologos advocates actually feel a little warm and fuzzy toward ID, especially the old earth type, and consider them family not only as Christian brothers and sisters, but also in the same philosophical family, just disagreeing as to how that plays out on the scientific field.

5 Likes

Not to mention that some people here (e.g. Dennis Venema and Denis Lamoureux) used to be part of the ID movement.

A very close friend, who in real life goes by the same name as Eddie!

It states that an irreducible biological system, such as a bacteria species, is made up of well matched interdependent parts. In order for it to function all parts had to be fully formed and synchronized in place. It was impossible for the separate parts to have evolved in isolation from each other accumulating their characteristics one by one over a period of time to make a healthy organism.”

Why not recommend some of the professional peer reviewed scientific literature, to see how ID stands up to scientific scrutiny?

3 Likes

Now where have I seen all that before?

And a mania about the sovereignty of God. Yes, I’ve certainly seen all this before.

1 Like

@JPM,

My robust colleague of “the Plume” … I will raise my hand in support of what you said about Old Earth I.D. proponents!

Because it’s easier to go directly to school boys and school girls?

4 Likes

God could have created a “spiritual” Garden Of Eden and made it work or he could have made a universe that could evolve but the same “adam” could not have lived in both universes. If a physical “Garden Adam” ate physical food and there was physical critters in his digestive system and there was no physical death then Adam would have exploded from the critters multiplying in his gut.

By “physical universe” I mean a universe that would continue to exist if God took a ten second or a ten year vacation.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.