@agauger
It is old news, but I did not violate several cardinal rules of the group, I violated exactly one: I pressed (slightly) for allowing debate about the age of the earth. Quantity of transgressions aside, you are correct that the group had every right to expel me. I have unintentionally violated the biologos rules on occasion, and they treated me professionally–in stark contrast to the childish, imperious manner that I was treated by Dembski on the ID Iistserv.
2 Likes
Sorry I’m late to the party here. What exactly are you charging me with @Bilbo? I think my claim was that there is no back, smoky room where we decide what we really believe, but then only communicate some of that to the public. How did that morph into my claiming that every transaction of our organization is done in public? Of course we have staff meetings that are not open to the public, and we don’t publish our internal conversations. Of course there are interpersonal issues that are none of your business. Did you really understand me as claiming otherwise?
2 Likes
Hi Jim,
Someone else challenged me on this earlier. I think my main point is that you don’t make all of your policy decisions public knowledge. I wasn’t issuing a criticism. However, David Klinghoffer wanted to generate a criticism out of the various disagreements among BioLogos people. My point is, if he wants to throw stones, Discovery Institute and ENV are open certainly open targets, themselves.
1 Like
Scientific detectability is irrelevant to theology. But for ID, who wants to be considered a scientific research program , it’s vital. They are committed to detectability. What kind of scientific discipline can’t detect what they are studying?
1 Like
Actually I woukld like to touch on methodological naturalism. I know you said you were bowing out and I would email you but I’m working on a couple projects and don’t need to get too sidetracked. I understand if you don’t respond. You said provisional methodological naturalism (PMN) isn’t methodological naturalism. That’s not completely true. If you mean MN in the way it is widely understood, as an intrinsic part of the sciences, then I agree. But it is still a type or species of MN. It is still a methodology. It has a framework and starting assumptions. There are rules. There are starting points and it works from these starting points. We should exhaust all naturalistic possibilities before considering supernatural ones. People like Bill Craig and Dembski have said things similar to this. Now this does raise interesting questions. When can we be confident we have exhausted the possible natural mechanisms? Can a supernatural explanation be a sufficient scientific explanation? I think so but it would be tough. I find IMN very unreasonable and philosophically indefensible. It can cut off potential paths to knowledge and truth. I think everyone wants to come to know truth. PMN is much much more reasonable. Though it is different from ordinary reason as you call it. It has a framework. Well ordinary reason doesn’t necessarily. The framework of PMN still centers around natural causes. So when you say it isn’t MN that is incorrect.
2 Likes
@heddle
Remind me why we’re having this discussion again please? You probably were treated badly by Dembski, but Dembski is not intelligent design personified. Besides, what does it have to do with the issue of design detection? We can trade stories of mistreatment and blame until the cows come home, and make no progress on the central issues which both Discovery Institute and Biologos are interested in.
1 Like
If you think we are trying to fool YECs have a look at Günter Bechly’s post today at Evolution News on the latest rewrites to the story of human origins… The dates reported are the standard dates in the scientific literature. Not 450 K but I’m ok with that.
Has ID produced any scientific achievements which have subsequently been used to improve any area of study or production? Medical, biological, engineering, computing, agriculture, or anything else? Because evolution has a really good track record in this regard.
1 Like
2 things. Evolution as a theory has been around for nearly 160 years and had trouble making headway for quite some time. Second, most of the advances you claim are due to science, not evolution.
That doesn’t answer my question.
I need to see evidence for this. Do I take it that the answer to my question is “No”? It looks to me like ID is a solution looking for a problem.
I’ve seen this from ID sources dating back to its inception. By comparison, Darwin was able to assemble large amounts of evidence in his favour while composing Origin. It’s my take that if ID had something to offer scientifically, it would be apparent by now. I’m getting the sense that more and more Christians are feeling the same way - ID just doesn’t seem to be the happening thing that it seemed to be back about 2000-2005. Of course I recognize that ID folks don’t feel this way. It’s just one person’s take on it, FWIW.
2 Likes
@DennisVenema
The proof is in the pudding and it’s still baking. I am more optimistic about ID now than when I started in 2005. There are some key questions being asked that are right on point, and will.be crucial in determining the limits of evolution.
I recognize that it’s just my opinion. I too was once enthusiastic about ID. In my circles of Christian academics I know only a handful that are still ID adherents. Back in the early 2000s there were many more, it seems to me.
Ok well in science people don’t make dogmatic claims about theories until they have evidence for them… While they’re still in the “give us time” stage, they refer to their theory as an unsubstantiated hypothesis. This is not what the Discovery Institute does. Not only do you claim that ID is a demonstrable and demonstrated theory, you repeatedly make the claim that evolution is a theory in crisis which is continuing to crumble as more and more evidence against it continues to pile up.
But aren’t you supposed to be finding evidence for ID, rather than determining the limits of evolution? Again, you’re just reinforcing the fact that the whole aim of ID is to oppose evolution, despite the DI’s claim that ID is not necessarily in conflict with evolution.
1 Like
Determining the limits of evolution is not necessarily opposing evolution. Determining what can and cannot be substantiated by evolutionary claims is useful. Learning to distinguish evolution from design is also useful.
Darwin intended his book to be a substitute for design. Natural selection served in God’s place. Therefore evolution and design are intertwined and the relationship of one to the other must be clarified.
1 Like
A passage from Gunter’s post: “Only a few days after that, other paleontologists vehemently disputed the new findings, doubting that one of the teeth belongs to a primate at all (Greshko 2017, Hecht 2017). This, of course, was without having seen the actual fossils. Getting rid of such problematic finds would be very convenient, so doubts remain on either side of the story.” This is why people can’t stand you guys. Always accusing us of dishonesty. ID constantly has to rely on conspiracy theories to explain your failures. Also ironic about this is hardly any of you guys have ever examined the fossils you dispute. I’m not getting onto you Ann. You know I love you to death. You’re a sweet lady.
Günter is a paleontologist so knows something about fossils and paleontologists, probably more than you.
It seems to me, sweet lady that I am, that all the dispute was on certain paleontologists’ sides. Reporting that fact does not make Günter dishonest. How much paleontology have you read? Dispute is the name of the game.
Why the weirdness at the end? Sarcasm?
sarcasm? No. I have had private correspondence with you and find you to be a delightful person. 1. He is a paleoentomolgist (a darn good one) He does not study the human fossil record. I used to deal with mosasaurs doesn’t mean I understand the odonate fossil record. The passage I shared clearly shows Gunter accusing these other scientists just trying to explain it away because it’s inconvient. That’s accusing people of being dishonest.
I’d want to check the published articles to see the source of the skepticism. Private conversations? When?