im sorry? Not sure what you are asking for here.
Or the sources about the skepticism about the German tooth discovery?
I’m referring to this
We speak on Facebook, Ann.
Sorry for being slow but the same name?
yes mam. We have spoken about my recent conversion to Christianity. Among other things
Ok now I remember. Sorry for the memory problem.
It’s quite alright!
Fair enough, but Dembski is the poster child for what I view as the overall dishonesty of ID. It could be very beneficial to believers (and perhaps those on the fence) to have trained scientists speak about how their study of science has strengthened rather than weakened their faith. But instead ID, fooling nobody, pretended it had nothing to do with religion was all about actual science demonstrating design. Everybody and their mother knew that it was really about fighting the culture wars. In my mind, the ID movement ignored St. Augustine’s famous advice. I’m angry at the movement not because I was treated badly, but because ID has made theism (specifically Christianity) look foolish. I am angry because every year on Panda’s Thumb the odious PZ Myers can take a break from denouncing our faith and justifiably mock well-documented (and undelivered) misguided promises of imminent scientific production made by leading IDers
Why are we having this discussion? I’ll repeat my entry question (slightly reworded): What actual experiment can we do that makes a prediction that will result in the rejection the null hypothesis that design has no unique signature?
I believe if anyone comes up with such an experiment it would be first in line to receive grant funding from NSF, NIH, …
2 Likes
Yes. And that sounds like someone who accepts evolution but is just testing its limits. But that’s not what you people are doing. You are actively arguing against evolution. You are claiming it isn’t a fact. So you are not just “determining the limits of evolution”, you are denying it and trying to argue that there’s a better explanation. So “determining the limits of evolution” is a very misleading description of what you’re trying to do, since you don’t accept evolution in the first place.
Yes but you’re not doing that either.
That should be all you need to focus on if you’re actually just interested in establishing ID, and if ID is truly compatible with evolution. If you really think it is, then you wouldn’t be bothered at all by evolution, you would just leave it alone and focus on differentiating design from evolution. But that’s not what you do.
Darwin himself said that his understanding of evolution was compatible with a creative God.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I first encountered ID back in the 90s I was interested but wary. Mainly wary because it was obviously an evangelical endeavor, with a heavy emphasis on theology. That was back in the Philip Johnson days, when the theology was much closer to the front of house, with public statements such as these.
The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.
This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.
Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory
[quote=“heddle, post:130, topic:37120”]
G
But instead ID, fooling nobody, pretended it had nothing to do with religion was all about actual science demonstrating design. Everybody and their mother knew that it was really about fighting the culture wars. [/quote]
From Dembski because he has been most outspoken and it has cost him a great deal.
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999) Edit
Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. 1999. LCC BL240.2.D46 1999. ISBN 9780830823147.
The question rather is how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out. They are on the way out.
p. 14
My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.
p. 206
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e., the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
[quote=“heddle, post:130, topic:37120”]
What actual experiment can we do that makes a prediction that will result in the rejection the null hypothesis that design has no unique signature?
[/quote] I have an idea for one but have to run it past our expert in the field.
Ann,
Perhaps I should be more open minded about the current ID community. I would like to be. There are some with whom I’ve had interactions (e.g., Jonathan Witt) that I greatly admire. But to be honest, the 1000 page book announcing the death of theistic evolution philosophically, theologically, and scientifically makes it smell like the same old approach of boldly announcing the total defeat of one’s adversaries.
3 Likes
Note to TJ Runyon: I have chapter proofs on provisional vs intrinsic MN that I’d like to send you, but no email address to use (I also sent you a FB friend request). Please contact me at nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu, thanks.
We’ve been hearing this same old triumphalism for decades. Like the annual cry that evolution is “a theory in crisis” and “about to collapse” and “losing support daily”, it never actually happens.
[quote=“heddle, post:133, topic:37120”]
the 1000 page book announcing the death of theistic evolution philosophically, theologically, and scientifically
[/quote].
The title is “ a scientific, philosophical, and theological critique“ , not deathknell. This book was written in response to the many TE books published in the last few years
If both ID proponents (@Paul_Nelson aside) and EC proponents view the Genesis account as more allegorical than historical, then I do not understand the basis of the theological critique. Honestly, I doubt I will buy the book, so I would love a brief comment on how theology differs between the “tents”.
The theological perspective differs from person to person in ID. So each attitude toward the theological section varies. That section was independent of the others, with its own editor.i am probably the only Catholic in the whole group so I probably differ more than most.
Michael Behe isn’t part of the group anymore?
EDIT: Never mind, I misread the original post. Sorry.
1 Like
Who was the editor of that section? And do you agree/disagree/neutral/anything else with the theological section?
1 Like
The editor is Wayne Grudem. His interpretation is more literal than mine.