@Marty ,
Good to see you back for a bit! ID arguments are shut out because they operate the same way as the old Proofs for the Existence of God.
Nobody in the scientific community seriously argues that God’s existence has been proven … and most in the same community don’t think that is ever going to change.
So … the same epistemological problems that make it impossible to prove God’s existence also make it impossible to prove God’s role in design. See the image below:
To be sure the philosopher and theologian can ask about the implications of scientific results. But that is philosophy and theology not science.
What constitutes “understanding” in general is highly subjective. Scientific understanding is about explaining the result of written procedures that give the same results no matter who performs them and no matter what they may want or believe.
Absolutely. And Dawkins was being inconsistent and hypocritical when he put forth God as a scientific hypothesis in “the God Delusion” while excluding the ID as a scientific hypothesis in biology. But then just because a scientist writes a book doesn’t mean that the book is science – that book was amateurish theology not science, and the pretense to science made it pseudoscience. But neither can ID be called science – not only is the claim not falsifiable but it is inconsistent with the most basic premise of scientific inquiry. It amounts to nothing more than a preference that science simply not seek answers to certain questions and that is an attack on science, not a contribution to science.
I don’t see it that way. What I see is that lots of scientists speculate beyond what can be proven only by the first level scientific method. But on biologos forums only ID proponents are criticized for it.
BTW - That image is a straw man.
Take it from the other direction: how do we know walking on water is a miracle? Because we know how water and gravity behave. So because of the science, Jesus walking on water would be a miracle. Right? (The ancients didn’t use any of the language we have for it now, but they knew natural law.)
The good ID arguments parallel that: we know how the science works, and we know xyz happened, but by natural processes alone xyz should not have happened. Is that science? Well if it’s not, it’s the only form of non-science that gets attacked here, yet by that definition non-science is the rule of the day in the science press.
Agreed. But why then are only ID proponents objected to on these forums?
Is somebody advocating this? Golly I hope not! It was Christians that started the whole scientific enterprise. The existence of God calls me to curiosity! In contrast, atheist assumptions around “junk DNA” prevented scientists from looking at it, so beliefs around evolutionism hindered progress.
Anyway, my point is that speculation is rampant. People take the science and look at its implications beyond just the data. That’s what humans do. I honestly don’t think we’re going to prevent that. My beef is that on these forums, only ID proponents are criticized for it, and they are criticized aggressively, yet it goes on constantly all over the place.
(We have hijacked the OP’s thread here…!)
This forum, established by a scientist who is also a Christian, supports and defends both science and Christianity. So those going against either of these are going to be attacked pretty consistently. That includes not just ID which is opposed to science but quite a number of things opposed to Christianity.
I haven’t seen that. I see many YEC opposed to science, and I see other ID proponents who love science and recognize flaws in the philosophically naturalist narrative that almost always accompanies it. Francis Collins argues for the fine tuning of the universe for life, and that’s an ID argument, so it seems to me the founder of Biologos is an ID advocate.
In short, the leaders of the Discovery Institute are trying to re-define “natural science” to include Divine Intelligence. That’s a No-No & hasn’t worked. They deny this, then affirm it, then deny it, then affirm it again in their movement. It depends who you’re speaking with & on what day. There is no “genius” who codified ID theory, but a smattering of varieties of ID “theories”, most of which are merely superficial philosophy & speculative mathematics.
“I see many YEC opposed to science…”
It’s good that you recognize this, as it has been a staple of fundamentalism, then evangelicalism, largely non-mainline, in the USA for nearly 100 years.
“Francis Collins argues for the fine tuning of the universe for life, and that’s an ID argument, so it seems to me the founder of Biologos is an ID advocate.”
Fine tuning ideas about the universe came before ID theory. Brandon Carter came up with “anthropic principle” in 1973/4, so let’s not give that one credit to Discovery Institute, ok? Francis Collins rejects ID theory, so he’s clearly, in his own thoughts, not an ID advocate. In his TLoG, he says of ID theory - “when Science needs Divine help.” He notes, that,
“Intelligent Design fails in a fundamental way to qualify as a scientific theory… ID also fails in a way that should be more of a concern to the believer than to the hard-nosed scientist. ID is a ‘God of the gaps’ theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain.”
Collins is a fairly “decent” natural scientist in the USA nowadays, right Marty? He’s also an evangelical Christian who rejects ID theory openly. Could you please clarify how you disagree with Collins’ rejection of ID theory and why? https://youtu.be/U_0qy6U-Rtk
One has to be careful with IDists, Marty, b/c they’re tricky linguistically & philosophically. And some of them actually try to make people think they support ID theory, when in fact they are laying a temptation right in your lap, convenient to swallow.
“If, however, [a person] thinks that evolution happened, but by God’s design, then that is some form of intelligent design.” – Bruce Chapman Somebody Thinks He Speaks for the Pope | Evolution News)
No, that’s theistic evolution or evolutionary creation.
Of course, ID proponents want to claim every TE/EC for their own side! Pseudo-science can clearly be used for apologetics purposes. This is the weapon of ID theory - if you’re against their “theory”, yet you are a religious believer, they feign to make you think (with honed & repeated rhetoric) you’re currently against God! If you don’t personally feel the pressure of their rhetoric to convert you to their tempting “science of God’s Intelligence”, then I would especially suggest caution to see if they’re giving you tempting rhetoric, as has happened to others.
They want you to think that changing the definition of “science” should still be called “science.” Yet everyone else, even not a few evangelicals, disagrees with them. So they lay on guilt, probability, and fear tactics about the rise of atheism or “nones” in USA.
The fact of the matter on the social level is that evangelicals pushing YEC → ID theory constitute a significant problem vector for the “rise of atheism”. ID proponents seem to actually be causing more of it, rather than less.
I must say this line of thinking is very troubling for your non-Christian neighbors. It is disturbing when some of you feel that it is God’s will to bring a calamity, that you know for whom it is intended and some feel they must support God’s agent on earth who inflicts the calamity. I will always question any theology that makes Christians gleeful regarding the suffering of others. If evil must come, let it come. But I curse as evil anyone who lifts a hand to help it along.
I can’t agree. The whole problem is that we cannot turn God into an independent variable!
The rules of logic apply to the so-called proofs of God in the same way as the apply to the so-called proofs of design.
ID is not defined by a belief that God created the universe. That is called theism and there is no incompatibility with science there. The reason why theists like Francis Collins and myself are opposed to ID is because it claims that science cannot explain the origin of the species but that only intelligent design can explain this.
Fine tuning is the idea that the universe is designed to support life, and I would agree with Collins on that, though I don’t think this amounts to an objective proof for theism. Fine tuning is an argument made by a large number of people both scientists and theologians in many different forms and only some of them were made by ID proponents and specifically for the idea that living things themselves are a product of design. This is quite separate from EC and the idea of divine involvement in evolution, for one can believe as I do that God is involved in evolution as a shepherd and teacher not a designer.
My question is, If WC is like Deism, then isn’t YEC like pantheism.
EC claims that there is definite distance between God and God’s Creation. God’s Creation has its integrity just as humans do. God does not intervene directly into our world and the physical world just because God sees something that God does not like.
On the other hand in the pantheistic universe God and the world are one. God is in direct control of the universe, and thus the universe absolutely reflect the will of God.
Pantheism places the physical above the rational and spiritual. The world of science and Christianity puts God first before the physical, but the physical is important. God made humans viceroys over God 's Creation, not dependent on God’s Creation.
Remembering that ID stands for “Intelligent Design” and looking at the words themselves, it means something very simple: it means the speaker holds the opinion that something is designed by an intelligence. This is how I am defining it. If you allow the opponents or enemies of ID to define it, they will define it according to their own convenience. But it is not primarily a movement or a political strategy: it is an idea.
Yes, and if it is designed, doesn’t that imply an intelligence behind it? This is why I consider Fine Tuning to be an “intelligent design” argument.
You bring up Evolution and ID, and that is a different ID argument. There are just a few categories of ID arguments with Fine Tuning being one, abiogenesis another, and evolution another. So someone like you or Dr. Collins can use an ID argument like Fine Tuning but disagree that the complexity of life on our planet is evidence of ID.
So I think you are not actually opposed to ID per se, but that regarding evolution you disagree with those who claim it provides evidence of intelligent design.
Is this a helpful clarification?
Are you talking about YEC ID proponents? I agree that they use some bad arguments.
But don’t lump all ID under that umbrella. Fortunately there is plenty of thoughtful and engaging ID discussion based on the assumption that God’s creation does not mislead us.
Are you talking about YEC ID proponents? I agree that they use some bad arguments.
About all ID proponents, without exception, from the uneducated Southern Baptist who welcomes the “theory” because their Pastor/Minister says they should, right up to the “empty top” PhD scientist or politician at the Discovery Institute. There’s no “originator” of ID theory. It’s a movement built to attract a certain type of “literalistic” evangelical to “feel persecuted together for religious reasons”, and thus incite people to protest with them, so that they may thus together share a common financial desire for reform by funding the DI.
Yes, and this is the paradox, or the “rub” in Shakespearean terms, for those who wish to stay away entirely from the pervasive politics at the DI and throughout the IDM. This “Intelligent Design” theory has brought together people in what may be one of the most Republican-leaning Movements in the USA these days, don’t you think? How Republican-leaning is the Discovery Institute, would you say, speaking openly?
Without talking about or insisting upon the “science” of ID theory, that is, requiring ID theory to actually be a valid “replacement” of (neo-)Darwinian evolution or the modern evolutionary synthesis, or the extended evolutionary synthesis, one can still speak with people in friendly way about how “God’s creation does not mislead us.” I agree with you that this is fortunate and that there are “plenty of thoughtful and engaging” discussions happening by ID people (iow, they’re really not “ignorant, stupid or insane”) … about non-ID theory-related topics and conversations. They’re just the same as you and me, Marty; after stripping away the tricks, they’re interested in questions about life and death, origins, meaning, purpose and morality. They’ve just gone down a bad road and have used divisive rhetoric based on a political-theological-scientific desire that doesn’t hold for most thinking religious persons. I’d be curious in another thread to hear more about what attracts you to their ideas, yet for most enthusiasts I’ve met, they treat it as a scientific apologetics for their own private religious views, which isn’t all that admirable when one zooms out to a wider picture.
The part you seem warm to is the “theistic ID theory”. Yet that isn’t much of a “theory” to contend with or argue about because all Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims agree already that God created (designed) the world. This was understood or interpreted as such before theistic ID theory came along, so let us not give the Discovery Institute credit for that, ok? The “scientific ID” unique contribution of DI seems by all objective measures to have been crushed by professional scientists across the atheism, agnosticism, and theism spectrum. So if you wish to defend “scientific ID”, instead of just “theistic ID,” then good energy for your attempt.
Thanks in any case for standing in line to ask your “scientific ID” questions to all the anti-ID theory scientists here or elsewhere. ID theory isn’t producing new insights for everyday people to consider, just repeating the same “minimalist” claims, so most of your questions have probably been answered previously.
George, my friend, please, please, don’t post giant text or all CAPS. Online it’s shouting and it’s rude.
No one, and I mean no one, is suggesting we can do a scientific experiment and get God to show himself. It’s an absurdity, and that’s exactly what your picture shows – an absurdity. But when it comes to ID, that’s a straw man because nobody is suggesting that.
My point is simple: nobody in the scientific community fails to discuss the implications of their research. It’s standard practice. But when ID proponents attempt to discuss implications they see in the research, they are lambasted and in many cases hated on. So if we all agree to shut it all down, then fine. But on these boards I have never seen anyone criticize a single article on ScienceDaily.com with outrageous speculations or even outright misrepresentations around origins research or evolution. Not one comment. In contrast, no human could count all the complaints on these boards about ID.
Yes, there are just bad ID arguments, and I understand that. Refute them. But the argument that “it’s not science” is only for purposes of ID bashing and is defining “science” in a way that it simply … is … not … practiced.
So, can you summarize in a sentence how an I.D. scientist is going to prove that a designer made something?
And isn’t it completely irrelevant if a Christian embraces Evolution as PART of God’s process of design?
The only thing that I.D. hopes to add to the equation is that the evidence of a designer is going to be scientific enough that it can and should be taught in the public schools.
But if you think my Two-Box image is ridiculous, I think you have answered the question of whether I.D. will ever have enough science to bring to a public school.
If I may, ID says that evolution is by random chance, not by design. To verify this ID refers to prominent evolutionary scientists. EC says that God creates by evolution and the evidence indicates that it is by design, and not by chance.
The difference is over the nature of evolution, not the design of Creation. ID tries to prove that the world could not be created by its type of evolution, which has some logic, and EC says that the world was created by God using designed and guided evolution. Non-believers saying that a non-existent God could not have create the world and YEC saying that God did not misspeak in Genesis. .
NO! ID is an acronym. It stands for a group with a history and an agenda. They do not simply reduce to the meaning of the words used. That kind of dishonesty is PURE propaganda!!!
Acronyms aside, I have considerable more opposition to this than you imagine. I actually think that intelligent design should be the defining difference between living organisms and machines. We are fast approaching the time when we will have mastered all the machinery of life. Does that mean that we will be able to make our own living organisms? I don’t think so. The very fact that we make them will mean they are not living organisms at all but machines.
Hi @jbabraham88. I can speak from a Progressive Creationist (PC) perspective (probably similar to Mark), which I have come to from looking at the data. I think there has been divine intervention (not just providence) in the history of life, but of course it would be impossible to prove any particular. Your friend Mark may get it from the Bible. I have good friends who are EC and we enjoy batting all this around.
First, I would say to relax. It’s not a tier one issue in our faith. Enjoy a conversation with Mark about how he came to that. I guarantee you will learn some things. Don’t make it an “us vs them” issue, because both views are common in the Church for a variety of reasons. (And BTW – if you’re dealing with a YEC, don’t ever discuss the science until they see that the Bible does not require a 6 x 24 hour day interpretation.)
Secondly, I don’t know any way PC requires science to be done differently! I can’t emphasize that enough. That looks to me like a misrepresentation from ID haters. Unless you can provide me with a link that shows that to be a serious claim, I’m skeptical. God created the universe with natural laws whether he chooses to intervene or not.
Third, as to whether EC is deism, that, like so many other issues, is a bell curve. There are some “Theistic Evolutionists” whose arguments sure seem to look like that. But I have a good friend who thought for sure he was EC and was suspicious of PC until we slowly discussed both in depth, at which point he argued that since we cannot tell for sure where God intervened, PC is no different from EC. EC allows for divine action, though we don’t know for sure where or how or even whether God intervened. And some EC use interesting language around “shepherded” or “guided” evolution, but they are arguing against deism there.
When I talk with my EC friends, we tend to bat around the data as well as the theology. It looks to me like natural processes are inadequate to produce the complexity we see (I think evolution needed help), and they will push back or “see my point” depending. It’s really a lot of fun and educational if we don’t make it a dividing issue!
So tell Mark that some Theistic Evolutionists may be deists, but most ECs just prefer to be circumspect about whether or how God intervened because we cannot prove it. Truly the best comparison of PC and EC is in the book Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation? with Biologos and RTB (RTB prefers “Old Earth Creation” moniker vs “Progressive Creation”, but they are practically the same).
This is where we agree. I just don’t think the word “design” applies. I think God’s role is more like that of shepherd and teacher than designer. And this is the difference from Deism, as theists we all agree that God is actively involved in the events of our lives. The great machine maker is a fundamentally Deist idea of God, so once the machine is turned on then God only has to sit back and watch.
I believe creationists and ID people have been looking in the wrong place for God with their clever designer watchmaker conception. We know know that computer programs can design things better than human beings can. Is this cause to worship them? It is not being a better designer that makes Him God, but the better shepherd, parent, and teacher.
Woo! Some of us have some energy here! But no, my friend, just because some people use a term and have an agenda does not mean we can no long use the words for what they mean. Please avoid words like “propaganda.” I’m telling you how I use the words so we can converse. But when I speak to you, if you have a term I can use that will not bother you, I’m open.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
