My ID Challenge

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

This is a rather doctrinaire statement. I don’t see why proof in theology should be, in principle, any more difficult than proof in science.

@Eddie,

Really?!?!? Aren’t you just arguing for the pure sake of arguing?

Science can arrive at a single answer for the density of Uranium. It can arrive at the equation E = mc2 … which can be tested all while we are still alive.

The Catholic doctdrine of “Limbo”? Can you prove that ? Or are you going to have to wait until you enter the Undiscovered Country? And, maybe not even then? How about pre- or post- millenialism? Who is correct? Maybe neither ?

Mormons believe there is no Hell for mortals - - and that all humans will arrive in one of 3 different levels of Heaven. They are Universalists.

Jeh. Witnesses believe only 144,000 will get the really good jobs in Heaven. Everyone else gets an honorable mention …

Some Baptists insist that without the “work” of Baptism, there is no Heaven, while other Baptists only admit that Baptism is required to join the Church … not to obtain salvation.

Unitarians Universalists do not require a belief in the divinity of Jesus … Moslems insist that Jesus is not divine.

These are contradictory positions, Eddie… but they are ALL (theoretically) compatible with the idea that God spent millions of years to evolve humanity.

[Of course, some of these denominations take additional stands that prohibit this belief.]

Front-Loaded:
Ironically, Eddie, you set up the meaning of the term “Front-Loaded” that I actually decided to adopt! - - but you refuse to accept what I think is the only logical conclusion derived from your definition. You are sort of living proof that BioLogos must accommodate lots of chaotic views.

Naturally, I think you will insist that I am using a different definition for Front-Loaded than the one you use. I would be delighted if you provide us your definition of front-loaded.

As to the initial application of the term?.. I am referring to its earliest uses in Creationism discussion …Here is one page, written in 2007 (the same year as the founding of BioLogos). It focuses on the “front-loading” of genetic material … not the “front-loading” of all creation:

" What ID advocates would likely say in response to this finding is that it is an example of front loading rather than exaptation. Front loading is the idea that God . . . programmed in all of the genetic information necessary for later developments in to the first cell. "

Michael Behe famously proposed this in Darwin’s Black Box:

“Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not “turned on.” In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) So which is the best explanation for the existence of such genes in the sea sponge, exaptation or front loading?”

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/08/exaptation-vs-front-loading-wh/

[harry1]

If God creates everything, why does anyone see there is a conflict between science and Bible? Hasn’t God created Newton, Darwin, Eisenstein, Physics, Evolution, Biology, etc.? Whatever happened in the past was willed by God; whatever is happening is willed by God; and whatever will happen will be willed by God. If you believe that God is the Creator, the answer to every question is already there. The existence of God does not need any proofs. Nothing in the physical world can prove or disapprove the existence of God, just like that in math no one can tell the definite result of 1 divided by 0. At the end of the day, God is light (representing all knowledge, including science), God is love, God is Spirit, God is consuming fire, God is way and life and truth. God is with everyone, whether you are a religious or nonreligious people.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Since you made a claim about the original usage of the term “front-loading,” I thought you were going to verify for me the earliest appearance of “front-loading,” i.e., I thought you were going to tell me who coined the term, and what he meant by it. So:

Who coined the term “front-loading”? What did he mean by the term?

How is my usage of the term different from his?

@Eddie,

As you can see in my prior post, I provided an early use of Front-Loaded which pre-dates our forum discussions… and we can see that the use of the term front-loaded was a reference to front-loading genetic content (of chromosomes) … not a front-loading of the entire Universe.

I have relinquished all further interest in attempting to identify the first user or the the first use of the term.

Addendum: Eddie, you write: “There were of course disputes about the technical working of the sacraments, some differences over free will and determinism, and differences in ecclesiology; but by and large there was a tendency to consensus in broad Christian doctrine.”

Eddie, with all due kindness, Eddie, the reason you can say “by and large there was a tendency to consensus in broad Christian doctrine…” because the Evangelicals allow for that.

When it comes to Evolution for Creation … there is no “by and large” … and there is no tendency for consensus.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

I much prefer the approach of Plantinga, which is to put scientific truth and theological truth in dialectical tension, so that one can never be sure that it is theology that has to re-write itself to accommodate current science; it might be that sometimes “consensus science” needs correction from theology. But of course, given that most of the founding and current leaders of EC are themselves scientists, it is not surprising that they are not very enthusiastic about this last proposal…

@Eddie

I conclude that the Plantinga approach [regarding Science and Theology in a dialectical tension] is a flawed one. It’s nice to know what it is that pushes you on to seek some sort of absolute and definitive theology for BioLogos. I don’t believe it can be done!

Addendum:
Here is a quote from the Wiki treatment of Plantinga:

“In the past, Plantinga has lent support to the intelligent design movement. He was a member of the ‘Ad Hoc Origins Committee’ that supported Philip E. Johnson’s 1991 book Darwin on Trial against palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s high-profile scathing review in Scientific American in 1992.”

“Plantinga also provided a back-cover endorsement of Johnson’s book. He was a Fellow of the (now moribund) pro-intelligent design International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, and has presented at a number of intelligent design conferences.”

“In a March 2010 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, philosopher of science Michael Ruse labeled Plantinga as an “open enthusiast of intelligent design”. In a letter to the editor, Plantinga made the following response:”

‘Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence “intelligently designed”. The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I’m dubious about that. . . . As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life.’

'What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. [!!!]

‘But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn’t say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn’t say that it isn’t.’

'Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn’t say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.’ "
[end of quote]

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Eddie

Such individual statements, however, would make explicit that EC/TE is not really a single theological position, but an alliance of individuals with quite different theological positions – just as ID is an alliance of individuals with quite different positions on origins. I for one would welcome such a clarification. Generally speaking, a conversation between two individuals (e.g., Francis Collins and Michael Behe) is likely to be more productive than a conversation between two “movements.” I wish there could be more one-on-one discussions and debates between ID leaders and EC/TE leaders. I think that would illuminate many things that are not clear when the two “movements” confront each other.

This is all true and well said.

@gbrooks9

These are contradictory positions, Eddie… but they are ALL (theoretically) compatible with the idea that God spent millions of years to evolve humanity.

But … isn’t that entirely beside the point? You missed the key premise of what Eddie was saying, which was

@Eddie

If a Christian claims to accept the Bible as the revealed word of God

Beginning from this premise, it is entirely possible to make judgments about the “superiority of one theology over another.” (I prefer Eddie’s terminology here, rather than talk of “proof” or “proving” that a particular theology is more or less faithful to the biblical text.) If one accepts the Scripture as the word of God, then we have an agreed upon standard to compare one theological proposition against another. If a theology rejects this premise, however, all bets are off.

George, why do you keep putting stuff in bold?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jay313

George, why do you keep putting stuff in bold?

@Jay313… I vary bold and asterisks and so forth to replace the missing dimension of the tone of my voice… and to draw attention to key sections.

You say that I missed @Eddie 's point … But you see, I disagree with Eddie’s point. He wants BioLogos to emphatically, or at least explicitly, state its position on some key theological points.

This would make it very difficult for BioLogos to be considered a haven for virtually all Christians who support Evolution - - if BioLogos went out of its way to reject denominations that have contrary views of non-Evolutionary metaphysics.

By nailing one foot to the floor, and maybe an elbow to the wall, BioLogos becomes easier for some denominations to reject BioLogos - - for non-scientific reasons.

BioLogos - - the Big Tent … it doesn’t need to specify lots of Metaphysics.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@gbrooks9

I vary bold and asterisks and so forth to replace the missing dimension of the tone of my voice… and to draw attention to key sections.

Try using italics. It seems less like you’re yelling at us.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jay313

Try using italics. It seems less like you’re yelling at us.

Do you think magazine articles are yelling at you when they put bold letters in their headers?
I could understand your reaction if I type a whole sentence in caps… but not when I just use bold.
That’s what bold is for!

I will give italics a try … but I don’t find it does its job that well.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

Fair enough. Keep on with the bold. Maybe just a little less of it, though? I can usually pick out the important stuff on my own. Haha

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@gbrooks9

But you see, I disagree with Eddie’s point. He wants BioLogos to emphatically, or at least explicitly, state its position on some key theological points.

Actually, I think this was Eddie’s point (on that subject, at least):

@Eddie

This charge could be addressed if EC/TE folks specified, at least as individuals if not as a group, how God was (in their personal view) “involved with” evolution.

Sorry for the bold.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Eddie, post:953, topic:4944”]
It’s clear from your example that you don’t understand the way the term “body plan” is used in the evolutionary biology literature.[/quote]
I understand it quite well, as I’m sure you know, Eddie. I wasn’t using the term as it is used in the evolutionary biology literature (metaphorically, the same as “code”), I was using it in the context in which it was brought up, as an “intelligent design.”

[quote]I suggest you do some reading. You might begin with some of the discussions in the Altenberg people.
[/quote]Discussions aren’t relevant. The relevant reading is from those crude empiricists who do developmental biology, who show us that there is no mechanistic separation between planning and execution.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jay313

I like bold. It looks good on your posts!

As for Eddie’s request that EC/TE folks specifying their personal views…

1. I haven’t noticed @Eddie being appreciative of my forthright discussion of my views. He usually says I’m wrong.

2. Maybe that’s why there aren’t many people who want to play by Eddie’s rules?

3. And Eddie is not the only one who noticeably mock my posts whenever I offer details about God’s involvement in Evolution. I find it rather amusing, frankly. God says he makes a mud doll, blows air into its mud mouth… and we have a human.

But if I suggest that God uses a cosmic ray to facilitate a genetic mutation - - everybody has a heart attack!!!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

You need to read what people write in context before you react by writing long posts. I wasn’t referring to Plantinga’s views specifically on evolution at all. I was referring to his general views on the epistemology of science/theology tensions.

And I don’t need such an unreliable source as Wikipedia (on which you rely far too much, I might add) to learn Plantinga’s views. I’ve heard him state them clearly in a live talk, in my presence.

@Eddie

I think you need to read posts in context before you jump to conclusions that I’m jumping to conclusions.

I reject Plantinga’s views on epistemology of science vs. theology. I think he’s wrong about that.

But, in contrast, I actually like some of his views (unreliably presented by Wiki?) about Evolution. That’s why I provided some of the extra text from the Wiki article.

As for your credibility regarding conveying what someone says (live) … you misconstrue what people write all the time - - so I’m hardly going to find your impression of what they say as reliable.

As for Wiki… it provides an excellent benchmark - - from which people can offer comments specifically criticizing this or that opinion. But more importantly, the articles frequently provide an excellent array of footnotes that allow me to dig into the more reliable writings. Wikipedia is a helpful community property.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

I’ve never objected to the fact that you state your personal views on the subject of God and evolution. But I’ve been asking for the personal views of BioLogos columnists, ASA-TEs, etc. Telling me what you think doesn’t tell me what the BioLogos writers think. (Though you have blurred the distinction between the two in the past, as when you claimed that Collins was arguing for your view.)

Okay, @Eddie , tell me something - anything - about my view of God’s involvement in Evolution that you agree with ?

As for Collins, I believe I have said that Collins supports the view that I hold. Next time, I will reverse the word order so you don’t misconstrue my intention: I support the view that Collins holds to!

As for your other various complaints … it’s just a re-hashing of you trying to find fault with something I wrote, when I had no intention of being held to such a rigorous assessment of my terminology. Sometimes I’m just trying to get a paragraph finished before I have to run an errand, do a chore, or go to bed.

One of these days, Eddie, you’ll get the knack of being more interested in helping to develop a consensus than proving other people wrong.