I believe there is something to ID as an apologetic. I think most believing scientists and science admirers do. We do look at science and see (more like “feel”) design, even in evolution. The more we learn about science, the more we see (feel) God’s hand, not less. Where we part ways is when ID is said to have a scientific foundation. That is the benign parting of ways. The malignant parting of ways, speaking just for myself, was what I viewed as the dishonesty, machinations and even tribalism of the early 2000’s ID leaders–who really poisoned everything about ID with their misbegotten, hugely counterproductive, epic-failing culture-war attempts to “wedge” it into the science curriculum.
6 Likes
I completely agree with David on this point. There were a lot of “shenanigans” during that time period. From my relatively sparse interactions with ID proponents over the last few years, I do believe that they are headed in the right direction integrity-wise. However, the common sentiment seems to try ignore those incidents rather than confront and reject them.
3 Likes
Hi Jon,
Tell Eddie I apologize for not noticing he wrote the post, not you. Meanwhile, I just tried logging in at your blog, with the new password that it just generated for me…no luck. I’m afraid I’ll just have to post my replies here.
I think the clearest indication that ENV is not on the up and up came in yesterday’s post there of an interview of J.P. Moreland, in which he said that ID confirms the Bible. Now ENV knows exactly how YECs will understand that. Klinghoffer was the one writing the article. Did he bother to correct any misinterpretation that YECs might have of Moreland’s words? Hell no. Why not? On other occasions, Klinghoffer goes to great pains to point out that ID is not a religious theory. You think he might offer just a slight correction to possible misinterpretation of Moreland’s comments. So why didn’t he?
And again, let me know when Dr. Gauger bothers to write an article at ENV in which she expresses her opinion that Adam and Eve lived at least 450,000 years ago and were members of homo Erectus.
Or let me know when ENV posts an article letting people know that Behe argued for common descent by noticing the pseudogenes that chimpanzees and humans have in common.
1 Like
@Bilbo,
It’s no secret that I hold the view I do about the possible dating of Adam. It’s in Science and Human Origins. Casey Luskin agrees. I teach about it at the Summer Seminar. With Mike Behe it’s a little less clear. He accepts common descent, but also believes in intelligent design. This has been known for some time by everyone. Casey regularly would say that you can believe in common descent and accept ID. He used to mention Mike Behe as a case in point. the video below gives a short explanation of Behe’s view. Denton also accepts common descent.
1 Like
Does the Discovery Institute teach that common descent is a fact? Does it teach that evolution is compatible with the Bible and with ID?
3 Likes
Does it teach that an old earth is compatible with a young earth? Yes.
4 Likes
Best summary ever.
Much like Biologos, there are a variety of opinions on the subject of common descent. The only uniform statement I am aware of is that you can accept common descent as long as you believe there is detectable evidence of design, because neo-Darwinian processes cannot do it all–there is evidence of his presence and involvement.
If by evolution you mean change over time, then of course it is compatible. If you mean common descent but guided then there is no problem with the Bible as far as I can tell
As far as suggesting that the bible is compatible with an unguided process responsible for evolution, no.
@beaglelady we do no"teach" about young earth or old earth. We accept the standard dating.
1 Like
I don’t know how much influence you may have over other authors at ENV, but it would be nice if Venema’s views were accurately portrayed. Most notably:
In other words, we have multiple, interlocking, converging lines of evidence for each of these three claims, and we can have great confidence that new scientific evidence will not substantially change our views. (Also, note that I do not claim this certainty for the oft-cited ~10,000 figure, as Buggs seems to imply, since future estimates could possibly shift this value a bit. What I’m saying is that new evidence isn’t going to get us from a population to a pair). Is it proven? No, proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as the saying goes. Can you take it to the bank? Absolutely. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.
Venema has never said it is impossible that the human population dwindled down to two people in the last 200,000 years. What he has said is that it is highly improbable. As Venema says, it is a subtle yet important distinction, especially when ENV authors are beating on a strawman version of Venema’s claims.
2 Likes
@T_aquaticus
I actually have very little say in what gets published, though I can and do offer my opinions.
I am going to be very frank here. The issue is that Dennis can’t find an appropriate citation–can’t or won’t–yet made strong claims. He rightly makes the the point that no one has done the experiment, precisely because they thought it was impossible. But until you actually run the simulation, you can’t “know” it’s impossible. You can’t take it to the bank.
Read what Dennis said in his book, and compare it to what he is saying now. If he had said it was highly improbable in the book there wouldn’t be any issue.
I would love it if there were no sniping. But read Dennis’s chapter four. His treatment of Meyer, Behe and Axe is downright insulting–not just straw man insulting. These ad hominem attacks are not worthy behavior, and this isn’t the first time either. Let me just say that the author at ENV was provoked. And we have the whole book to get through.
If you really want peace, it will take action, and from both sides.
1 Like
Why aren’t the citations he uses appropriate?[quote=“agauger, post:31, topic:37120”]
Read what Dennis said in his book, and compare it to what he is saying now. If he had said it was highly improbable in the book there wouldn’t be any issue.
[/quote]
Venema seems to be pretty consistent between his book and what he writes now:
I put it as follows in Adam and the Genome, after a lengthy discussion of the evidence for common ancestry of humans and other species, and a large ancestral human population:
As our methodology becomes more sophisticated and more data are examined, we will likely further refine our estimates in the future. That said, we can be confident that finding evidence that we were created independently of other animals or that we descend from only two people just isn’t going to happen. Some ideas in science are so well supported that it is highly unlikely new evidence will substantially modify them, and these are among them: The sun is at the center of our solar system, humans evolved, and we evolved as a population (55).
Returning the sniping isn’t going to make things better.
1 Like
Why is there any conflict at all, if the Discovery Institute agrees evolution is compatible with ID? If that is the DI position, why does the DI keep arguing that evolution isn’t a fact and why does the DI keep arguing against EC?
2 Likes
Do you mean that the Discovery Institute publicly acknowledges an old earth?
2 Likes
@Jonathan_Burke
There are 3 different meanings people give to the word evolution. Change over time, common descent, and a neo-Darwinian, naturalistic evolution involving all of the above. I’m okay with1 or. 2 but not 3. So is Discovery institute. Where are you?
I don’t see EC here. That’s my position. Why isn’t EC here? Is DI ok with evolution which involves “change over time, common descent, and a neo-Darwinian evolution used by God to create”? I’m interested in your comment on common descent. How many articles has DI published which argue that universal common descent is a fact?
So how exactly does this work. Do the kremlinologists write up a report of the individual user approaches and submit it to the ENV hierarchy? And what do they do with the information?
Does your EC say that God’s action in using evolution to create, was at least sometimes detectable? Like the appearance of the first cells, or the Cambrian explosion, or other rapid radiations in the history of life? Or what about the genetic code, or molecular machines? Because if it isn’t detectable it becomes a matter of faith alone that He was involved.
If your EC says you can discern His hand, then welcome aboard.
Common descent is a position held by many ID people in the beginning, and still is held by some. I don’t know why the shift away from common descent happens, but it does usually.
It’s funny because apart from ID, common descent is held more closely than the Darwinian mechanism itself.
We don’t publish that Universal Common Descent is a fact, because we don’t believe it is, as far as we can tell. Even those who accept UCD have a hard time declaring it a fact. There is just too much contradiction.
Now can we move on? We’ve had this discussion before and it is still hasn’t changed anything.
Can I ask why it is a problem if it is undetectable?
1 Like