My ID Challenge

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@gbrooks9

THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE:

1. The EVIDENCE shows that the Earth is MILLIONS of years old… not 5000 years old.

what does this have to do with anything I have said?

@gbrooks9

2. It is CONCEIVABLE that Evolution over these millions of years has happened without God, but this is not what I believe is the case.

3. My belief is not based on observable natural phenomenon. It is based on my assessment of a Universe Without God vs. With God.

4. I am truly doubtful that we will ever find a scientific way to prove God shapes/causes one or more episodes of Evolution.

So… how does this suit you, @deliberateresult?

It encapsulates the problem I am trying to expose. What you are saying George is that you believe in God in spite of, not because of the evidence. The Scriptures tell us over and over again that God has given us evidence. You stake out a position that not only refuses to celebrate that evidence, you steadfastly resist it. Therefore, in promoting a narrative of life (which is quantitatively different from the natural world) that does not need God, you open the door for people like me who see a complete disconnect between this view and the one given to us by the Scriptures, to reject any faith we may have had.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

One thing I can agree with you on Nick is that you and I have not gotten anywhere. I would really like to enter into a substantive conversation with you but not only are you not a good listener, you are far more fond of arguing against straw men of your own creation than what I have actually said:

@Nick_Allen

So, what you have done, is to set up an impossible task, to convince “young Joe” that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. This is impossible because “young Joe” wants to believe that there is conflict between the Bible and evolution

Sorry Nick. Young Joe did not want to believe this. It is what “young Joe” saw. it was what many many people (much more than not among those who consider such things) have seen and continue to see.

@Nick_Allen

“young Joe” will redefine terms at his whimsy to ensure that his definition of evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Why “young Joe”, why? Why do you insist on defining terms such as “natural processes” in such a way as to exclude God’s control of them

let me ask you a question Nick: is there a difference between natural processes and supernatural processes? What might that difference be?

@Nick_Allen

Why do you define the TOE in such a way that by definition it excludes God’s control of evolution, and then stubbornly refuse to allow for a definition of TE that allows for God’s control of evolution

Sigh…Let’s try this again: If evolution is a “controlled” phenomenon, then there is, by necessity, a “controller.” Natural processes do not “control.” Natural processes can be controlled or constrained toward intended ends, but they do not control. See my question directly above.

Intelligent agents routinely constrain natural processes toward intended results. This does not infuse purpose into these mindless processes as I have clearly and repeatedly shown. The purpose is every bit as external to these processes as the intelligent agent who constrains them. Thus, the purpose comes from God’s control. Furthermore, just as we can very often and very clearly discern evidence for intelligent agency in the physical results produced by intelligent agents, the evidence from life points to the necessity of a Creator of life. Once again, Nick, this is good news for us Christians, not something to avoid or be ashamed of.

@Nick_Allen

Why would you insist that without scientific proof of the necessity of God, no one can believe in God

Here we have a perfect example of you not listening and instead investing in straw men of your own making. There is a tremendous difference between claiming that evidence exists and claiming that without evidence it is impossible to believe. I am defending the former claim, not the latter straw man. Moreover, you continue to relentlessly accuse me of using the word “proof” when the fact is that I consistently use the word “evidence.” There is a big difference here as well.

@Nick_Allen

you just can’t reconcile it with your strict YEC upbringing,

Here we have yet another perfect example. Despite the fact that I have told you that I had no YE upbringing, you insist that I have. Truly remarkable.

You marshall a vast array of Scriptures to justify a laisse fair view of evangelistic responsibility (or should I say irresponsibility?) but in doing so, you embrace a tiny piece of a much larger message and flaunt the clear imperative that every one of us who call ourselves by His name are called to:

“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand”
Ezekiel 33:6

"And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature’ "

Mark 16:15, and the last command Jesus left with His apostles.

As I have said, I would love to have a conversation with you but as long as you refuse to deal with what I actually say, that will be impossible.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@beaglelady

I know of no one embracing and then rejecting ID.

What about Denis Lamoureux?

yeah, I heard him say as much in the Toronto debate. I would love to hear his reasoning. Can you point me to anything he has said that would elaborate on this?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Swamidass

I embraced and then rejected ID too. This is almost the rule among evangelical scientists. I know probably a dozen at my university alone.

OK, I obviously stand corrected here. I am fascinated to learn the reasons. At the risk of putting words in your mouth (please correct anything that might misrepresent your position), there was a time when the information and molecular machinery of life represented compelling evidence for you that life required a Creator, but something caused you to reconsider?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@BradKramer

Here’s Dennis Venema (@DennisVenema)'s story: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/series/from-id-to-biologos. He embraced and then rejected ID. It’s well worth reading.

Thanks Brad. I have just read the piece. I would like to ask Dr. Venema the same question I posed to Dr. Swamidas

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@deliberateresult

Thus, many contributors to this thread put forward the notion that while they believe in God as the Creator, they insist that His necessary role in the Creation and evolution of life cannot in any way be detected. Herein lies the seed of atheism.

Seed of atheism? Or are they simply being honest? The “hidden-ness of God” has been a struggle for theologians for centuries. Whether or not someone thinks that God’s involvement is measurable by the scientific tools and procedures of the scientific method should NOT be confused with atheism or some dangerous seed of atheism. When God banned HAADAM and EVE from the garden in the Eden region, they were cut off from the daily intimate fellowship they once had with God. So by kicking them out of that place of communion with God, did God thereby “plants the seeds of atheism?”

When I look at this amazing biosphere—and especially when I marvel at the incredible structures and “survival solutions” crafted by evolutionary processes—I can’t help but to fall on my knees in adoration and praise-filled worship. I consider evolution to be among the very greatest testimonies to God’s power and wisdom. Imagine establishing a universe with physics and universal constants which inevitably produced life and the evolutionary processes which continually adapt and diversify that life.

YET…if asked to use the Scientific Method to identify and quantify the role of God, I’m not all that surprised that I’m not able to do that. Modern science was defined by the great Christian philosopher-scientists of centuries past to be methodologically naturalistic. Science is intentionally limited in scope and capabilities. It isn’t in broad in its purview as philosophy—but for those things science can investigate, it is incredibly powerful and gives much more exacting descriptions and explanations.

Were the Christians who pioneered many fields of science (e.g., Newton, Lavoisier, Boyle, Descartes, William of Ockham, Bacon, et al) “planting the seeds of atheism” when they so carefully restricted science to methodological naturalism? I don’t think so.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

It encapsulates the problem I am trying to expose. What you are saying George is that you believe in God in spite of, not because of the evidence.

@deliberateresult,

I like your interest in evidence … but not in the way you intend your meaning.

If I thought God was based on the reliability of Genesis … in terms of science and of history … in terms of the Age of the Earth and in terms of the uninterrupted history of Egypt … even though a Global Flood SHOULD have destroyed all of Egypt some time after the 4th dynasty …

… then I would have given up God a long time ago!

My belief in God is what SURVIVES the backwardness and primitive nature of Genesis.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

OK, I obviously stand corrected here. I am fascinated to learn the reasons. At the risk of putting words in your mouth (please correct anything that might misrepresent your position), there was a time when the information and molecular machinery of life represented compelling evidence for you that life required a Creator, but something caused you to reconsider?

@deliberateresult

YIKES! At the risk of seeming impertinent, I do take issue with how you word your question to @Swamidass… and indirectly to all of us. In any case, he has already answered you. This is MY answer to you…

How does a person deciding to REJECT Young Earth Creationism allow you to come to the conclusion that he longer thinks a Creator is needed?

Have you READ the mission statement of BIoLogos? Do you understand what we believe? We BELIEVE in God the creator … we just don’t believe he did it all in 6 days… and we DO believe he guided the machinery of natural selection and genetic mutations.

When will you give up this manipulative method of debate where you equate BioLogos as ONLY having to do with an ATHEISTIC interpretation of evolution?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

You fall on your knees in adoration and praise-filled worship? Why? According to many EC leaders, evolution is a catch-as-catch-can process, involving flagrant jerry-rigging, producing many poor designs, including backwards wiring of the retina, and some designs which are very painful, e.g., the weak human back, prone to all kinds of crippling injuries, and of course all those nasty parasites which commenter “beaglelady” here is always reminding us of (in order to ridicule ID). Why do you adore a creator who produces through an inefficient, suffering-producing process like that? Why wouldn’t you curse such a creator? Or a least belittle him as an incompetent Demiurge?

@Eddie

And now Eddie pursues his own zany assault on people who share his belief that God is behind all of creation.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

This is what @Socratic.Fanatic wrote;

"Seed of atheism? Or are they simply being honest? The “hidden-ness of God” has been a struggle for theologians for centuries. Whether or not someone thinks that God’s involvement is measurable by the scientific tools and procedures of the scientific method should NOT be confused with atheism or some dangerous seed of atheism. When God banned HAADAM and EVE from the garden in the Eden region, they were cut off from the daily intimate fellowship they once had with God. So by kicking them out of that place of communion with God, did God thereby “plants the seeds of atheism?”

When I look at this amazing biosphere—and especially when I marvel at the incredible structures and “survival solutions” crafted by evolutionary processes—I can’t help but to fall on my knees in adoration and praise-filled worship. I consider evolution to be among the very greatest testimonies to God’s power and wisdom. Imagine establishing a universe with physics and universal constants which inevitably produced life and the evolutionary processes which continually adapt and diversify that life.

YET…if asked to use the Scientific Method to identify and quantify the role of God, I’m not all that surprised that I’m not able to do that. Modern science was defined by the great Christian philosopher-scientists of centuries past to be methodologically naturalistic. Science is intentionally limited in scope and capabilities. It isn’t in broad in its purview as philosophy—but for those things science can investigate, it is incredibly powerful and gives much more exacting descriptions and explanations.

Were the Christians who pioneered many fields of science (e.g., Newton, Lavoisier, Boyle, Descartes, William of Ockham, Bacon, et al) “planting the seeds of atheism” when they so carefully restricted science to methodological naturalism? I don’t think so."

Eddie, Nothing in this is gnostic. There’s nothing in it about the demi-urge or gnosticism… Clearly the zaniest of your rants …

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The attack is not on Socratic’s direct words; it’s on the inconsistency of EC as a whole. All kinds of ECs have written paeans to evolution like Socratic’s (with the same rhetorical overkill). And all kinds of ECs have stressed what a messy, inefficient, pain-producing process evolution is. But the ECs never compare notes with each other (or even with themselves, because often the same EC says the two things at different times), and they don’t notice the blatant contradiction. The philosophical rigor just isn’t there.

@Eddie,

Fortunate for us and those who support the CORRECTIVE … BioLogos exists with it’s mission statement clearly stating its opposition to those who say humanity on earth is the result of an unintentioned evolutionary process.

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@gbrooks9

Eddie, Nothing in this is gnostic. There’s nothing in it about the demi-urge or gnosticism… Clearly the zaniest of your rants …

George, I can’t decide for sure that it’s the zaniest of his…well…“declarations”----but I have no hesitation saying that it is certainly within the top five.

[Nick_Allen (nicolas andulsky allen)]

@deliberateresult

let me ask you a question Nick: is there a difference between natural processes and supernatural processes? What might that difference be?

You answer your own question here:

@deliberateresult

Intelligent agents routinely constrain natural processes toward intended results. This does not infuse purpose into these mindless processes as I have clearly and repeatedly shown. The purpose is every bit as external to these processes as the intelligent agent who constrains them. Thus, the purpose comes from God’s control.

Therefore, the supernatural process is God’s control. The natural process is that which is being controlled, and also that which God has set in motion.

@deliberateresult

Why would you insist that without scientific proof of the necessity of God, no one can believe in God

Here we have a perfect example of you not listening and instead investing in straw men of your own making.

Nope. You made your own straw man when you said in the OP: [quote=“deliberateresult, post:1, topic:4944”]
reasoning that if life could be explained by purely natural processes, God was not necessary, and therefore, must not exist
[/quote]

Some of the resistance that you are getting on this thread is from people who see ID itself as a straw man, ie. @Swamidass when he says: [quote=“deliberateresult, post:799, topic:4944”]
I embraced and then rejected ID too. This is almost the rule among evangelical scientists. I know probably a dozen at my university alone.
[/quote]

In matters of faith, ID evidence is nice, but not necessary.
@deliberateresult

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Chris_Falter

Given the fact that you define the theory of evolution so differently than the scientific community does, you will understand that I have to wonder about those 3 decades.

sigh…I have quoted mainstream biology textbooks, including textbooks authored by TE Ken Miller. The definition is not mine. And to borrow a page from your own playbook, outside of BioLogos, it is very difficult indeed to find anyone - be they Christian or atheist - who would disagree with the definition of the TOE as a purposeless process. Wonder all you wish.

@Chris_Falter

As for Lenski’s bacteria, his own team identified a “genetic switch” upstream which had been turned off.

And here I have to question how carefully you read Lenski’s paper–unless you are relying on third parties. Lenski’s team discovered that the citT gene was copied (via an amplification mutation) into the region of a promoter active in the presence of oxygen. Your desciption of this discovery does not sound like their description of the discovery. Your description does seem to echo the description by the Institute for Creation Research site, however.

The promoter turned on the citT gene which normally imports citrate into the cell in the absence of oxygen. And when you say “Lenski’s paper,” it is not clear to me that we have read the same paper. The one I referenced was Blount, et.al. (Lenski’s team). But that’s a small matter. My point was a response to your original point:

" If we instead rely on scientific observation to provide the foundation for our faith, we run the risk that the supposedly strong fortress of “irreducible complexity” will get blown up by observations of the emergence of nylonase from a frameshift mutation3, or the emergence of citrate metabolism in a Michigan State lab"

Neither the work of Lenski’s team nor anything concerning nylonase refutes the concept of IC. In the case of the former, nothing new has emerged. In the case of the latter, it is still too early for any definitive conclusions (1). Nor have I ever made IC a “stong fortress” in my own defense of ID. In fact, I don’t recall even mentioning it. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that natural processes can produce the most advanced data processing system we have ever encountered and the most technologically advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered, no one’s faith in God is at risk when we proclaim that life manifests evidence of a Creator.

@Chris_Falter

The only place I see this analysis on the web is in an article by Purdom on the Answers in Genesis website. It is completely contrary, however, to the report of the team that made the discovery:

My own speculation is inspired by the work of Ohki et.al. I don’t know this Purdom fellow and I will restrain myself from sharing my speculations on your motives and your “research” methods here.

@Chris_Falter

I have followed the footnotes in the Purdom/AiG article, and discovered that they make the unwarranted conclusion that the frameshift mutation led to a less specific esterolytic activity. Ohno’s team, however, did not describe a less specific esterolytic activity, but rather the ability to break down a different ester (nylon-6).

why, at this point in our knowledge of the nylonase gene, is it unreasonable or unwarranted to conclude that we may be looking at a loss in specificity?

@Chris_Falter

many, if not most, mutations that appear to confer a benefit to the organism may actually be pre-programmed into the organism (See the work of Lee Spetner and his theory of Non Random Evolution, for example)

Spetner is a Jewish physicist who believes that all of life stems from 365 different species that God created during the literal 6 days of Genesis 1. You expect me to take a citation to Spetner as evidence of your recent reading outside of YEC/ID authorship?

Neither Spetner’s religion nor his view of Genesis 1 should factor into any evaluation of his hypothesis. Moreover, it was not my intention to answer your charge against me when I brought up his work. Rather, it was to serve as an example that there are those who see some mutations as pre-programmed events built into the organism. This should have been clear from the context. But let’s go ahead and replace Spetner’s hypothesis with the natural genetic engineering hypothesis of James A. Shapiro who, while some may accuse of Jewishness, no one will confuse him with YE/ID.

@Chris_Falter

After all this research, Joe, I have found no hint of a citation to mainstream biology in the passage you cited as proof to the contrary. I suppose I might have missed something, but you’re going to have to supply specific evidence if you want me to believe otherwise.

It seems to me Chris that the fruit of your “research” amounts to a whole bunch of effort to justify your claim that I only read creationist literature. It is frankly not worth my time to continue indulging this rabbit trail of yours. I have provided evidence to the contrary for what its worth, and frankly its not worth much. But let’s suppose for a moment that everything you accuse me of is true, and I am only reading creationist sources. So what? The question is not what are my sources, the question is whether there is any truth in what I am putting on the table.

I am happy to engage as deeply as you wish concerning nylonase, citrate, the flagellum or IC (with the caveat that none of these issues are central to my main points), but as far as your accusations concerning my sources, I am done with it. You can travel that road all you wish, but it will be alone. If this is goodbye, so be it. If you want to continue, so be it.

(1). I try to use my words carefully but here I have to confess to some sloppiness. What I should have said is that it appears possible that the bacteria could have already possessed the ability to digest a similar substance.

deliberateresult:

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

ECs of course say that God “intended” to use an evolutionary process. But they also very often say that the evolutionary process God actually used (Darwinian, blind search for useful combinations followed by natural selection) does not produce top-notch design, but only crude, makeshift design, often with harmful side-effects. So when you put that together, it means that God intended to use a clumsy process which would produce results of varying quality and goodness.

@Eddie,

There are two sentences that should be stated … and you only stated one of them.

You said “God ‘intended’ to use an evolutionary process.” But you ALSO need to state: “God’s guidance of natural selection and genetic mutations transforms the evolutionary process into one with purpose and intention.”

From Point 9 of what we believe: “. . . . we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.”

See more at: The Work of BioLogos - BioLogos

As the Creationists have long said - - in the eyes of man Evolution’s design may look clumsy and crude … but how can man measure God’s design.

But the dilemma you point to is a subtle one: ID proponents who think God’s design is evident in His amazing creation - - BioLogos supporters are splitting the difference. God’s creation is amazing … but NOT so amazing as to make God’s presence and work obviously so.

All you are doing is pointing out that ID proponents OVERSTATE THEIR POSITION.