Just to be clear on BioLogos

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Stating that I do not see or never have seen something is not the same as claiming “I will never see it in the future.” So I think the inclusion of the word “yet” is unequivocally and logically implied in those words as they stand, even if you are correct in seeing behind it the anticipation that such a conclusion is never expected to materialize. But that’s all only with regard to the less interesting subject of codification. I’d rather spend time on the more important area where I think you are correct: the underlying attitudes.

I think that is very interesting and merits exploration. It also ventures further into territory that ‘biologians’ freely romp around in, meaning either that the Biologos tent is bigger than you were thinking, or else the ID program has more expansive circles than usually thought … big enough to at least include potentially significant space in common with Biologos.

22

well, you’d have to explain to me what in the world Biologos means by “methodological naturalism.” if, even in theory, they said they might be willing to consider intelligent agency as one of many possible hypotheses, i.e., were willing to entertain the design hypothesis in certain cases or under certain conditions, then i would have no disagreement.

but then, what in the world does “methodological naturalism” mean? MN doesn’t say we should preference natural explanations to intelligent agency, it says we should exclude intelligent agency as a legitimate hypothesis.

or what am I missing?

23

It seems to me that we are ill equipped to make the determination that there is no natural explanation. When natural explanations run out the cause is more likely to be out own limits rather than some incompleteness in the natural world itself.

The point of methodological naturalism is that it keeps us focused on discovering what is empirical rather than on what may be missing. I would never say what science can discover is all that there is in our experience. But it is convenient to note where consensual empirical fact leaves off and speculation concerning the details of our private experience begins so as to limit confusion.

1 Like
24

It’s the old battle between the descriptive vs. the prescriptive use of that phrase. I can assure you Biologos sees it as descriptive … i.e. a mere observation that our existing collection of scientific tools and methods are yielding good and verifiable stuff about empirical physical realities, but aren’t getting any purchase on any non-physical dimensions or aspects of our world. Whereas ID enthusiasts see in MN only the prescriptive “thou shalt not draw any design conclusions from science.”

It’s like one kid declaring to a friend: “I’m going to flap my arms and fly away.”
Responds 2nd kid: “You can’t do that! Arms aren’t built to fly. Just try it.”
1st kid: “Why are you prohibiting me from flying? It’s not fair - of course you’ll always think it can’t happen with an attitude like that.”
2nd kid: “Just try please … I’m waiting.”
1st kid: “Well, your mode of transport, by walking, has a lot of problems and unanswered questions I can point out. So I don’t know why you refuse to flap your arms and fly.”
2nd kid: “I’d love to. Just waiting for you to show me how that works out…”

And so it goes. ID will forever see nothing but prohibitive prescription where the proponents of MN (at least around here) are merely giving it as description.

4 Likes
25

This is starting with the wrong question. The first question is not does God direct evolution, but is evolution directed? The first is a metaphysical question. The second is or should be a scientific question. So which is good science, guided evolution or unguided random evolution. It might surprise most people that Darwin said that evolution is guided and Dawkins since he quotes Darwin on this question agrees. This statement is called by Dawkins the Darwinian Imperative.

" ’ Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.’ ” Dawkins, The GOD Delusion, p. 163. no citation given.

The Darwinian Imperative says that Nature guides evolution by selecting out what is “bad,” and preserving what is “good” for the improvement of each organic being. Unfortunately, Nature is not a thing or person, but an abstraction. If Darwin has said God does this it would make some sense, but instead he made Nature a substitute for God which does not work, because Nature does not think . Some non-believers wrote a book, What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massima Pialtellei-Palmanni, where this problem was pointed out. However this is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question.

Darwin did not say how Nature could select, but he did provide3 a me4chanism of sorts whereby it might select and this is called Survival of the Fittest, whereby individuals are forced to struggle for survival because of scarce resources and the winners are selected in by natural selection. The problem with this is that it has never been proven scientifically… I have explained how it is wrong in my book, my book, Darwin’s Myth .

In any case the fact is science, according to Darwin and Dawkins, indicates that evolution is guided by natural selection. The question then is what criteria guide natural selection, survival of the fittest or something else? This is the scientific issue that needs to be addressed, How and why is evolution guided by natural selection?

1 Like
26

Evolution is not random and undirected. More evidence indicated below. I wonder if that means that atheism cannot be reconciled with evolution according to Jerry Coyne?

Strong evidence that evolution is guide4d by ecological Natural Selection. https://www.pnas.org/content/112/7/2087 .

27

Regardless of what Jerry Coyne may think, it is hard to imagine why atheism should need to be reconciled to evolution. There is no creed to uphold or any positive world view associated with atheism. Even for Christianity there is no apparent reason why anyone’s theory of biological diversity should be constrained by the tenets of that faith. It all depends on what you think the Bible is, to whom it was addressed and what its message is thought to be for us today.

3 Likes
28

It is a question of the truth for both views of existence.

Dawkins believes that life has no purpose or meaning. Survival is neither purpose nor meaning. He might accept the Darwinian Imperative scientifically, because he thinks that somehow natural is rational, but not purposeful, however It is hard for me to imagine a purposeful and meaningful world without God as it Creator. What do you think?

29

I don’t speak for BioLogos, but as one who almost always agrees with its positions. I’m perfectly willing to entertain the concept that nature was designed by an intelligence (specifically YHWH, if we are to be honest). I’m also willing to entertain the concept that God’s intelligent design could be empirically proven to everyone’s satisfaction. I don’t believe that’s remotely likely, but I can suspend my disbelief and consider it logically possible. No disagreement so far.

Two problems intrude. The first is 20 years of failure to prove the design hypothesis. I could rattle off a bunch of names and acronyms, but none of them have survived “peer review” after their books were published. You can understand why I’m dubious. I’m still willing to suspend disbelief and entertain the idea that someone, somewhere, some day will provide empirical evidence of God’s design.

But then the second problem crops up. Discovery Institute doesn’t exactly throw its time and money into the scientific endeavor of demonstrating design in nature. By all appearances, the majority of its resources go toward “debunking” evolution, lobbying for science curricula across the country to “Teach the Controversy” about evolution, and holding PR/fundraising rallies with culture warriors like Eric Metaxas that leave the evangelical audience thinking evolution is false. That strategy is designed to win hearts and minds, not demonstrate a scientific proposition.

So you see my problem. If DI didn’t spend the vast majority of its time and efforts trying to debunk proven facts, violate the separation of church and state, and raise money by misleading evangelicals, I could take intelligent design seriously as an effort to demonstrate the proposition of design in evolution. As it is, all I see is another culture war propaganda machine cranking out yet another conspiracy theory. MN and the scientific establishment have locked us out of the game! Not exactly appealing. Perhaps if DI focused on the science, I could take it more seriously. But real science doesn’t play to the crowd …

Obviously, I speak only for myself here.

6 Likes
30

If there is a designer acting in nature then MN wouldn’t exclude that designer. The designer would be considered part of nature in this case.

MN is inclusive, not exclusive. The rules of MN describe the requirements for being included within the methodology, which is testable hypotheses and empirical observations. The problem for ID is that they have yet to come up with a legitimate hypothesis that can be tested with empirical evidence.

1 Like
31

Final thought: What do those who seek empirical evidence of God’s involvement make of Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Edit: Visible. That is, capable of being perceived by the senses, which means capable of empirical observation and measurement. The Scripture itself says we understand creation by God as a matter of faith, not of what we can empirically observe and/or measure.

2 Likes
32

none survived peer review by those peers who are so hostile to the very approach, and committed to ensuring no ID-sympathetic position would ever be given the respectability of a favorable peer-review? The same kind that demanded Sternberg’s resignation for daring to allow publication of an ID sympathetic article, and presumably would do the same In the future for any editor that ever dared to allow an ID-sympathetic article to ever be considered for entry into a scientific journal?

The same way the Israelites crossed the Red Sea “by faith” all while staring quite directly at the most obvious empirical evidence of God’s involvement one might find in the entire Old Testament (Hebrews 11:29)?

33

And science could not have proven that it was God who did it.

34

For those criticisms to have weight you would need to show how the ID work has scientific merit.

1 Like
35

Providential correlations, though obvious to the believer (through faith), cannot be proven by science. See Maggie’s dramatic account.

2 Likes
36

You have me intrigued but baffled. Can I buy a clue?

1 Like
37

No, but you have three lifelines. What’s your question? Phone a friend or ask the crowd? :rofl:

1 Like
38

I’ve read the arguments and counter-arguments. I seriously had no dog in the hunt when I showed up here not that long ago. Donning my referee’s shirt, I read both sides of the argument, and it was really no contest. Irreducible Complexity didn’t pass muster. Neither did Dembski’s math. “Hostile to the very approach” is a conspiracy theory. If any of the ID “prophets” had produced empirical evidence that held up to scrutiny, then even the most ardent opponent might’ve found a few nits to pick but been unable to refute the argument. When every Tom, Dick, and Harry Ph.D. can refute the arguments, I don’t think the position has much merit.

2 Likes
39

Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always. Remember today that your children were not the ones who saw and experienced the discipline of the Lord your God: his majesty, his mighty hand, his outstretched arm; the signs he performed and the things he did.

Those who did not witness the events must take the word of the witnesses by faith.

Edit: I suppose I should make myself crystal clear. This also applies to the resurrection. Jesus didn’t write anything down. He appointed messengers – apostles.

40

and those who did witness the event still proceeded by faith…

“By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.“ (Heb 11:29)