Hello Bio,
That is not a statement of fact. There is no such thing as “ID theory.” Theories are hypotheses that have been through many attempts to falsify them.
How about stating a mechanistic hypothesis and the empirical (that means not subject to interpretation) predictions it makes? Please leave out any grand titles, as they only serve to muddy the waters.
Hello Eddie,
If that’s literally the case, why are ID people from the Discovery Institute so prominently featured on the Reasons to Believe web site?
That would seem to me to be a tad more than “literally nothing,” no?
And there’s always the Wedge Document…
I already know the meaning, thanks.
I stand by my comment, particularly since the term “ID” is used by both you and Bio in multiple ways, none of which are well-defined.
If you’d like to show that you are not just engaging in nonproductive snark, you are more than welcome to provide a rigorous definition of “ID per se,” though, and explain how it differs from all of the times it’s been used by you and Bio in this thread.
But there is no ID theory. There isn’t even an empirically testable hypothesis.
It’s just a claim.
It seems to me that you are doing everything but illustrating the point in simple terms here. However, I have gone through the rest of the thread today (sorry for not responding earlier—I was occupied with some other issues) and I have become aware that the discussion has elaborated on some main points of concern (the distinction between cosmological and biological design, and whether aliens seeded planet earth). Cosmological and biological evolution can be easily explained that even grade-school children can understand and envision the complete picture—if it is clearly expressed using the appropriate terms and definitions for their level of education. For our concerns here, or any other ID demonstration, there are no technical terms necessary to illustrate these details—it’s elementary! At this basic level of illustrating the process of evolution (cosmological or biological) only the basic framework is required. We are not discussing the physics of the singularity at the point of critical mass, or the chemical makeup of the primitive atmosphere of early earth, or the genetic feature of the translation of information within the cell. Why has it taken over a year (since I have been here) for ID proponents like yourself, or Eddie, to come forth and clarify the ID position on what is implied by Intelligent Design? It has always been so simple to delineate and yet there has been so much deception, misrepresentation, and dishonesty on the position of ID—perhaps there has been a good reason for this. And don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see that things seem to be unraveling on that front—just very surprised that’s all. This is a very good sign indeed. Thank you for bringing these issues out in the open.
Yes, @Eddie made that point clear enough to understand which I’ll quote here again;
Although, I believe my questions here, are still valid;
I have presented my position many times on this forum concerning the Intelligent Designer being the eternal animating force that underlies the material world itself. What are your opinions regarding this consideration? More to the point, what is Intelligent Design’s position on this issue?
The concept eternal animating force is part of the belief system of panentheism, also known as monistic monotheism. Here is a brief quote on panentheism I saved within the past year that has since been removed;
"Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all”; ἐν (en) “in”; and θεός (Theós) “God”; “all-in-God”) is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme affect and effect” of the universe."
The problem with aliens is that it just creates an infinite regress—what created the aliens? Therefore, whether aliens brought life to planet earth, or whether life strictly began on planet earth—both scenarios require a primary Intelligent Designer, the (eternal animating force).
Perhaps the observation itself does not require a theological component in order to be coherent however, a theological component is necessary to account for its being.
Even ID proponent Gary Gaulin agrees that ID has no theory:
>I have very good scientific reasons to believe that the hypothesis “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause” is true. But my opinion would only add to a clutter of clever ways to say “it looks designed to me” that have already been boringly repeated again and again and again as though that is a scientific theory, when it honestly is not.
George, you are beginning to sound like an ID supporter! How is your view different from IDers who believe in common descent? Obviously, if you agree that natural processes cannot produce what we see, then you can see evidence for design in nature.
If you counter and say there is no evidence for design, then how can you agree with what Wesley said, because he obviously is speaking about design in nature?
And if you see no evidence of design in nature, then why do you think that unguided natural processes cannot account for what we see?
So, do you believe there is evidence that natural processes must be guided to produce what we see?
Or, do you believe there is no evidence that natural processes are guided?
You too doubt that evolution would be possible without God to guide it. My question to you is why? Why do you doubt it? What is evidence do you base this conclusion on?
Just curious.
For the sake of argument, let’s just say you are right. That ID has no testable theory. BUT, how is this different from Biologos and it’s view of origins?
Are your beliefs empirically testable?
How have they tested? Did they prove accurate in your experiments?
Have we been able to see life evolve even from a man made soup placed in extremely beneficial contrived conditions?
How do you propose to test abiogenesis? Just curious!
So Christians are not allowed to believe in ID or else the theory will be tarnished?
What does that say for Biologos? There are Christians that believe in Biologos’ ideas as well. Francis Collins is an outspoken Christian. So it must be a religious theory, right?
Eddie is right in that ID itself has nothing to do with the Bible. All Christians believe in a Creator who designed the universe and life as well I would think. How can you believe in a Creator God if you don’t believe He created or designed anything? The Bible is very clear about who God is, that He is the Creator, that He purposefully created the universe, that He purposefully created the earth to be inhabited, that there is evidence in living things for His existence, etc.
Most IDers believe the Creator is the Designer, but the theory itself does not demand that. That is all Eddie is trying to say.
Also, just an aside here, but what if the Designer is God? Would that make ID wrong? If God is the Creator and He did design the universe, would that mean that science is unable to come up with the right solution to the problem because the answer is an unscientific one?
What do you think?
BioLogos does not claim to have a scientific hypothesis or theory. That is the difference.
You could prove benkirk wrong by explaining the theory of ID and how it might be tested.
Hey @tokyoguy111,
Actually, those are great questions!
In the archives, readers can find where I suddenly start to complain about rhetorical efforts that I think stall the development of consensus … where ID proponents start getting all “nitty gritty” about how we need to define things. And I suppose there are so-called Theistic Evolutionists who are guilty of the same thing.
When an Intelligent Design advocate says: “I just don’t see how “xyz” can evolve without any guidance from an intelligent being!”
My response would be: “Okay! it’s a good thing I’m a BioLogos supporter - - we both agree, for different reasons, that God made that happen!”
I’m sure some people would prefer that I fall on my sword and try to convince the ID he-or-she that “given enough time, everything we see could happen without God”. But what’s the point in that? It’s arguing over an area of knowledge that none of us has a way to confirm for, perhaps, generations!
So, while I am agnostic about whether Evolution COULD produce the results we see without God, I’m NOT agnostic about God! God is real. And ID Proponents agree with that.
So why should we argue about “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin” ? It’s my belief that some Young Earth Creationists put on their “ID-clothing” and INTENTIONALLY argue about such things just to put road blocks in the way of BioLogos progress!
George
For people who still want to argue the point … it is really just a sneaky way to argue about whether genetic forms took MILLIONS of years to develop … or a week.
OK, George. Thanks for your answer. Are you saying the same thing in these two posts?
In one post it seems you are saying that you agree with the YEC Wesley that unguided natural processes could not produce the world/universe we live in - just like IDers doubt this.
But then, when challenged on that, you take a step back and claim to be agnostic on the issue? So which is it? Do you agree with Wesley or not?
When taking an agnostic stance, basically you are saying that even though there is no evidence for God’s existence that we can see in nature, you believe God created the heavens and the earth, right?
You don’t know whether undirected evolution could produce what we see. You prefer to remain agnostic about that - in spite of what the Bible says. (Or do you lean against that view like IDers and doubt it as you said?)
I don’t quite understand why you would bother to believe in a Creator God if you don’t think there is any evidence for His work of creation. Like I said, we call that blind faith where I come from -= belief without any evidence.
And I don’t understand how you can view God as the Creator if He did nothing and just watched blind undirected processes create the world He envisioned. I guess that out of the innumerable possible universes, the one the Creator envisioned(or do you think that He did not envision anything?) just happened to come into existence by dumb luck out. You believe that might be true?
You don’t believe in any intentionality by God? No planning, no guiding, no miracles, no nothing?
And if not, why even believe in God? You don’t need Him and besides, there is no evidence He even exists!
With a view like that, how in the world could you ever defend your faith? Why should anyone believe in God if there is no evidence for His existence? Do you think God wants us all simply to have blind faith like you?
George, does the Bible have anything whatsoever to do with your beliefs? If so, how in the world can you reconcile your view of god with how God reveals Himself to us in Scripture?
This is very interesting!
Oh, and one more thing:
George, you are not much different than IDers. You have just admitted that you do not even know if this is possible, right? IDers do not know either, but they think that from all the evidence, it is not possible. That is a legitimate conclusion, is it not? If you think it is more scientific to remain agnostic on the issue, that is fine, but when it comes down to it, you don’t even know if it is possible, yet you choose to believe it? Oh, right. You are agnostic about that.
SO, if you don’t even know if it is possible, the idea that it might not be possible would fit nicely with what the Bible says about evidence for God in nature, right? Given there is no conclusive evidence either way in your eyes, that would be one possible view of the data would it not?
@tokyoguy111… Gosh… you ask all sorts of questions. You are certainly a close reader of my posts … and you are right in detecting an initially more supportive position, which I had been considering more enthusiastically. But over time, I just found it increasingly difficult to really support.
When I formulated this sentence, it became the CRUX of my position:
“I just don’t see how “xyz” can evolve without any guidance from an intelligent being!”
The more I thought about it, the less certain I became that there really is anything that qualifies for a statement like that.
My position is the more ambivalent position I suppose:
All things have a purpose under God … including the very creation of humanity. That’s as far as I can go.
George
[quote=“tokyoguy111, post:88, topic:4274”]
For the sake of argument, let’s just say you are right. That ID has no testable theory.[/quote]
If we’re going to assume that I’m right, let’s start with what I actually wrote. ID doesn’t even have a hypothesis, much less a theory.
Biologos, to my knowledge, isn’t trying to dishonestly and/or ignorantly misrepresent religious belief as science.
[quote]Are your beliefs empirically testable?
[/quote]Some are, some aren’t. But I think it’s important to avoid false representations of untestable ones as testable ones. Do you agree?
OK, George. Fair enough. So now you are withdrawing this statement, right:
You now admit that you do NOT doubt that unguided evolution is possible, although you cannot be sure that it is either.
Thank you for clarifying that. However, you skipped over most of my questions.
I guess it is not worth repeating them since you don’t want to answer them.
Again, an assumption, but my guess would be that you can’t answer some of the questions sufficiently even to your own liking.
I still would like to know why you even believe in a Creator God if you do not think there is any evidence of His existence. Isn’t the atheist more consistent? You just slap on God on top of your belief in unguided evolution, but He is not needed at all in reality.
How is that any different from blind faith?
You said this about Wesley:
“Without God to guide evolution, he doubts that evolution is even possible!”
I’m guessing that is a paraphrase of Wesley’s beliefs, but it is hard to criticize since no one really knows. There is nothing wrong with that statement. You might say that you believe evolution without God is possible, but that too is opinion. We all have our beliefs.
Given what the Bible says, is it any wonder that Wesley would take the position he does?
Given what the Bible says about a Creator God, why do you think he is wrong?
Tokyo,
Correct, I use this sentence as a BENCHMARK for “Intelligent Design” which I do not attain:
“I just don’t see how “xyz” can evolve without any guidance from an intelligent being!” But, I do believe that God DID guide evolultion - - in order to achieve the perfect results at the perfect time. There really is no other way to achieve “perfect results at the perfect time” other than by guiding evolution (both the development of ecologies and the genetic response to the ecologies).
As to my own personal defense of a belief in God, I see CONSCIOUSNESS as the most mysterious thing in the Universe. Without God, the source of Consciousness, I see consciousness as an EPIPHENOMENON … that is totally irrelevant to the neurology of the human brain and to the human response to the world around it …
It is God that gives our Consciousness meaning. (<< remember, I AM a Unitarian Universalist!).
George
I see. That makes sense.
Thanks.
“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.