Darwinian Inquisition?

[RenHoek]

SEATTLE–The demotion of a well-published evolutionary biologist critical of Darwinian evolution has been found to be religiously and politically motivated, according to a new government report.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform released a staff report titled, “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.” The report details the persecution of Dr. Richard Sternberg, whose civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials when he published a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Stephen Meyer criticizing Darwinian evolution and supporting intelligent design.

http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedir...hePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
Thoughts?

 

[busterdog]

Prediction: Sternberg will be found to be "not a scientist" by Darwinians, which makes the issue moot and this will all just go away.

 

[KerrMetric]

Not so. As far as I know Sternberg has a PhD in a biological field. The controversy as I understand it is that in his final issue as editor before stepping down he let Meyers paper in the issue of the magazine. The problem was, again as I remember it, was that he did not follow the standard peer review guidelines. In fact, this whole controversy smacks as a publicity stunt by Sternberg since he was leaving anyway.

 

[shernren]

Here's a detailed examination that happened at another board:

http://forums.christianity.com/Hous...ts_violations_at_Smithsonian/m_1958192/tm.htm

A lot of questioning about political motivations to come out with this report.

 

[Deamiter]

There were two issues with the paper. Firstly, it contained nothing new. It was a literature review, and very similar to other pro-ID articles with no new research or information. While possibly an interesting article, it was quite different from the usual articles published by the journal which contained new information and research.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that the editor followed peer-review protocols. The publisher of the journal (his boss) says that the peer review procedures were not followed. As Sternberg has refused to name any of the four scientists he claimed he talked to about the article, his claims could not be verified, and due to the nature of the article (it being literature review) it was retracted.

It appears that this is a rewarming of the political move in August of 2005 to portray ID proponents as persecuted victims.

Note that it's also not an official report of the congressional comittee -- it's a report by some of the staff to Representative Souder, an ID proponent who has worked closely with the Discovery Institute and P. Johnson in particular to drum up support for the ID movement in a 2000 congressional hearing.

I guess if I felt that an editor of my scientific journal bypassed the standard peer-review process to push through a piece of propaganda (again, note that it included no original research) I'd be pretty upset with him! The journal's review of the case tried to verify that he'd discussed the article with a number of scientists, but could not find a single person or shred of evidence that this happened.

Finally, although the Bush-appointed James McVey did write quite a bit about how he felt Sternberg was treated badly after the publication of this article, McVey concluded that it was not at all religious discrimination as a government employee. As I said before, "discriminating" against an employee for violating policy is hardly the sort of religious discrimination that ID proponents have claimed loudly and often for the last few years.

 

[w00dy]

but why do you lot of 'creataionists' argue that you are the only discription of the lord that works, surely that is antichristical, i dont doubt the power of the lord.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the Wall Street Journal article:

"Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."​

The Branding of a Heretic
Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?

Here is the article and Sternberg's blog article on the publication:

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories


Sternberg peer review controversy Wikipedia

 

[Deamiter]

Indeed, once the article was published in what looked like a violation of protocol, it would make perfect sense that Sternberg's bosses would worry that Sternberg was a fundementalist who purposefully slipped an article supporting ID (but without original or even recent research) by the normal peer-review process because he knew it would not pass the process for technical (not ideological) reasons.

Similarly, if an evolutionist worked at a creationist publication for years and then published a polemic against creationism, I would EXPECT his bosses to ask if he had connections to atheist or evolutionist organizations. When somebody violates protocol in his boss' eyes, the boss IS going to wonder why -- and given that creationists and right-wingers are the ones who support Intelligent Design (and wold be those whom I'd suspect if a literature review that supported ID but was uncharacteristic in style and content -- totally separate from position or conclusions -- for the particular journal got published), I'm not particularly confused about why they'd ask such questions!

Quite simply, it looks like he violated protocol. He claims loudly that he didn't but is unwilling to name the people who advised him to publish the article (note that even just asking a few friends whether it should be published was STILL not following their guidelines but would have added credence to his claims that he acted in good faith). Yeah, I can buy that he's trying to protect them, but I'm also not going to blindly take his word that they're unbiased scientists and that they all advised that he publish it especially when it contained no new information as is standard for that particular journal...

Yeah, I can totally see why YECs would like to portray themselves as victims, but if it were the other way around, I wouldn't just take the word of an evolutionist about discrimination without evidence. The government organizations that have reviewed this case have determined that there was no illegal activity so that's not an issue. He failed to produce evidence that he'd followed the peer-review procedures so the article was retracted.

Because of Sternberg's refusal to cooperate with his employers, he found that his employers no longer supported him. Would you expect anything different in any other workplace?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

ok. accept for the sake of the argument that there is this vast conspiracy against YECism. That there are these evil darwinians who are stopping the publication of good science.

1-why don't they just put it on the net then? there is lots of stuff that claims to be suppressed by conspiracies that are posted all over the place.

2-perhaps it is posted, this good suppressed science that YEcists are doing. where is it so i can read it?

3- even if such a conspiracy exists. is this a criteria for the truthful of the theory? that is, evil men, conspiracies etc are not the criteria with which we judge truthfulness. truthfulness is something separate from those that believe it, something to do with how well the evidence from reality supports the theory and the ideas. even if there exists such a darwinian conspiracy to suppress the YEcists, the criteria for judging whether modern science or YEcist theories are better theories is their explanation of the world. on that grounds there is simply no reason to believe YECists have any science to evidence their theories.

however, i am always trying to break out of the box i am in, so show me these suppressed YECist papers and how they explain the data from the world in such a way that i ought to believe that the world is 6ky old. or if the topic is ID, show me papers that demonstrate IC or make a good argument for an intelligent designer's work with living creatures. I'd love to believe these things for strong religious reasons and would jump at the opportunity to assent to these systems. all i need is to understand the evidence.

 

[Deamiter]

mswilliamsll -- mark kennedy did post a link to the article in question in this thread.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science

As I've said at least three times now, it's a literature review and contains nothing new. While possibly an interesting read, this paper that was retracted by the journal CANNOT be an example of censoring YEC science. At worst, it's restricting publication of YEC literature in scientific journals.

Literature review does have a place in academic journals, but it's usually used to summarize a quickly-moving field that has made many advances recently that other scientists might want to look into. I don't think more than one or two concepts in the paper are YOUNGER than a decade old and have been very publicly debated in the recent Kansas trial and in other public arenas.

 

[mark kennedy]

I noticed that no one was actually reading the article before passing judgment on it. I read it and it's nothing close to YEC since it's devoid of Christian theology which is an essential element of YEC. The young earth creation view of natural history is a philosophy based on a worldview that includes God acting in time and space. The secularist finds this view repulsive so YEC is rejected with extreme prejudice. This thread is a great example how even the intellecual perspective of accomplished scientists and philosophers cannot be given a fair hearing on the merits of their views.

Judging the historicity of an event or series of events is at the heart of the controvesy at issue here. That would explain why TEs typically don't show much interest in the Scriptures as real world history. You can prove me wrong easily enough, just show me what events in Scripture you accept as real world history, particularly in the Old Testament. I assume you believe in the historicity of the New Testament or you wouldn't have any buisness posting in the Christians only section anyway.

 

[Deamiter]

I noticed that no one was actually reading the article before passing judgment on it. I read it and it's nothing close to YEC since it's devoid of Christian theology which is an essential element of YEC. The young earth creation view of natural history is a philosophy based on a worldview that includes God acting in time and space. The secularist finds this view repulsive so YEC is rejected with extreme prejudice. This thread is a great example how even the intellecual perspective of accomplished scientists and philosophers cannot be given a fair hearing on the merits of their views.

First off, yes, I read the entire article. I did indeed say that ID is YEC simply because besides one or two very isolated exceptions, it is only supported YECs. Anyway, I do understand that OECs often support ID so I do apologize -- although in this case, both the author and the editor in question have strong ties to YEC organizations so labeling them as YEC is hardly a misrepresentation.

Aside from mistakenly accusing us of not reading the article, this paragraph seems to make the same conflation that you accuse me of. First you say that the paper had nothing to do with YEC, and then you say that this thread is an example of how YEC is rejected with extreme prejudice. So which is it? Is the paper utterly unconnected to YEC (in which case, rejection of the paper cannot be rejection of YEC) or is the paper written by YEC proponents who have stripped God out of their position for the purposes of trying to give their theological position credibility in scientific journals?

It's always so nice to view one's self (or those one agrees with) as the poor victims of a conspiracy. I find it rather ironic that Sternberg is closely related to Johnson and those who came up with the wedge stratagy to promote YEC through propaganda and politics -- by doing things like pretending that ID has never been addressed by scientists and that it has absolutely no connection to YEC...

The trial in Kansas showed definatively that YEC proponents have tried to use ID repeatedly to get their YEC propaganda into classrooms to teach our children. The Panda textbook was such an amazing example of how YECists thought that by removing "God" and inserting "Intelligent Designer" they could fool everybody into thinking they weren't trying to support a religious position.

There are a very few ID proponents like Behe who reject most of YEC (including a global flood and a young earth) and they have my respect for being consistant even if not a single irreducably complex component has ever been shown to be unevolvable! YEC proponents who twist this into "YEC without mentioning that the designer was the Christian God we believe it was" are just furthering the wedge stratagy in trying to play semantic and political games to further their agenda to convert the uneducated public to their theological view.

 

[mark kennedy]

First off, yes, I read the entire article. I did indeed say that ID is YEC simply because besides one or two very isolated exceptions, it is only supported YECs. Anyway, I do understand that OECs often support ID so I do apologize -- although in this case, both the author and the editor in question have strong ties to YEC organizations so labeling them as YEC is hardly a misrepresentation.

I would really love it if ID was YEC but it's not and if you know anything about the theology involved it is obvious. It is puzzleing, at best, that someone can equate natural theology with the Bible as a canon of human history. You obviously are equating YEC with ID without a criteria outside of a referance to God being involved.

Aside from mistakenly accusing us of not reading the article, this paragraph seems to make the same conflation that you accuse me of.

Oh, you actually read it? That would explain why you have made no mention of what was actually discussed in the thread. It's Intelligent Design so it must not belong in a scientific publication, that is about the extent of the message you are sending out.

First you say that the paper had nothing to do with YEC, and then you say that this thread is an example of how YEC is rejected with extreme prejudice.

First of all I don't have a problem with someone keeping theology and science seperate, I know I do. What I am opposed to is the assumption that faith is whatever you like or want the truth to be, which is absurd. The unfounded assumption is that theology is false while science is completly trustworthy. YEC is rejected as patently false simply because it is not based on observation or experiementation. This is not only wrong it ignores the historical content of the Sciptures which is grossly out of character for a professing Christian.

So which is it? Is the paper utterly unconnected to YEC (in which case, rejection of the paper cannot be rejection of YEC) or is the paper written by YEC proponents who have stripped God out of their position for the purposes of trying to give their theological position credibility in scientific journals?

So why is it that you are so active on the topic and still don't know the difference between natural theology and a Biblical doctrine? Tell me something since you are taking the apologetic for natural science here. What is the purpose of the journal and how is that undermined by publishing an ID paper?

This is a secular agenda plain and simple, get God out of society is the ultimate goal here. Even religion is on the slate, that is why in secular universities you learn religion from atheists.

I'm really not into this because the conversation is running of on the same old tangent. I would be glad to take another look at the paper but I won't hold my breath waiting on that to happen. ID and the paper in question are both a skeptical and critical look at Darwinism. It does not supprise me in the least that you have yet to even mention this fact. Critics of ID never do even though that is the whole point of ID in the first place.

 

[Deamiter]

Oh, you actually read it? That would explain why you have made no mention of what was actually discussed in the thread. It's Intelligent Design so it must not belong in a scientific publication, that is about the extent of the message you are sending out.

Kudos for refusing to read my posts for comprehension! I've repeatedly shown how the article was rejected for reasons utterly unrelated to YEC OR ID. The Biological Society of Washington issued the following statement:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

Every single point (and yes, they were scientific points, not theological points) in the article was answered by scientists years ago and to refuse to publish rhetoric that has been presented and disproven is HARDLY a vast secularist conspiracy to mow down ID without using science!

The ID movement relies on books and speakers that continually repeat themselves but never acknowledge the work that shows that IC systems are evolvable. It can hardly be called science when people take that Biblical doctrine you talk about and spend their lives twisting data to fit their conclusions.

ID was considered briefly, but when not a single of Behe's IC structures were EVER shown to be unevolvable, the whole thesis fell apart from a scientific standpoint. The only people who still subscribe to such a view are those who NEED disproven beliefs to support their poor interpretation of scripture.

Oh, and so you don't continue to hold your breath, ID and the paper in question are both a skeptical and critical look at Darwinism. Of course, since Darwinism is hardly consistantly defined and the critical points have been refuted soundly, such criticism falls to the level of repeated rhetoric. There are those who publish a skeptical and critical look at the government's claims that Area 51 holds no aliens -- that those critics have as little supporting evidence as ID proponents doesn't stop them either.

 

[mark kennedy]

Kudos for refusing to read my posts for comprehension! I've repeatedly shown how the article was rejected for reasons utterly unrelated to YEC OR ID. The Biological Society of Washington issued the following statement:


Every single point (and yes, they were scientific points, not theological points) in the article was answered by scientists years ago and to refuse to publish rhetoric that has been presented and disproven is HARDLY a vast secularist conspiracy to mow down ID without using science!

It is a secularist conspiracy and a uniform one across the board. In fact I would never have had the slightest interest if they had stayed out of Christian theology but that's another issue. All ID scientists and philosophers emphasis a skepticism of Darwinism and none of their critics ever openly admit this glaring fact:

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination." (Stephen C. Meyer, Wikipedia)​

The ID movement relies on books and speakers that continually repeat themselves but never acknowledge the work that shows that IC systems are evolvable. It can hardly be called science when people take that Biblical doctrine you talk about and spend their lives twisting data to fit their conclusions.

Frankly, the TEs on here know less then nothing about YEC as a Biblical doctrine. If they do then I am at a loss for how to get them to actually look at the historicity of Scipture and make even the most rudimentary insights into what the Bible actually says. It does not exist in ID, Intelligent Design is natural theology and it was the prevailing view as a theory of origins hundreds of years before Darwin:

IN crossing a health, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? ... Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knew nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument: he knows the utility of the end: he knows the subservience and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little, need not beget a distrust of that which he does know."
(William Paley, Natural Theology )​

ID was considered briefly, but when not a single of Behe's IC structures were EVER shown to be unevolvable, the whole thesis fell apart from a scientific standpoint. The only people who still subscribe to such a view are those who NEED disproven beliefs to support their poor interpretation of scripture.

What ID has demonstrated is that Darwinism is NEVER subject to skepticism. This has been proven beyond the shadow of any remaining doubt. Had the emergance of complex living systems from bacteria and fauna ever been seriously questioned it would be different. It never is and the soaring generalities in your diatribe is a classic illustration of how it plays out.

Oh, and so you don't continue to hold your breath, ID and the paper in question are both a skeptical and critical look at Darwinism. Of course, since Darwinism is hardly consistantly defined and the critical points have been refuted soundly, such criticism falls to the level of repeated rhetoric. There are those who publish a skeptical and critical look at the government's claims that Area 51 holds no aliens -- that those critics have as little supporting evidence as ID proponents doesn't stop them either.

Try again because it has been spelled out in no uncertain terms, the progression from simplier to complex forms is the primary a priori assumption underlying Darwinism and you know it.

"the “origination of organismal form” remains an unsolved problem. In making this claim, Muller and Newman (2003:3-10) distinguish two distinct issues, namely, (1) the causes of form generation in the individual organism during embryological development and (2) the causes responsible for the production of novel organismal forms in the first place during the history of life...

...In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. " (Stephen Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories)​

 

[shernren]

Now this is interesting. Back-to-back mark kennedy claims that:

1. "Darwinism is NEVER subject to skepticism" (quoting verbatim), and
2. Darwinism has been criticized by Muller and Newman in 2003, Thomson in 1992, Miklos in 1993, Gilbert in 1996, and numerous biologists starting in the 1970s.

Which is it? Is evolution crumbling and being abandoned in droves by scientists, or is it a "big mafia in worldwide"? Can the IDers figure out for once if they're winning or they're losing?

 

[Mallon]

It is a secularist conspiracy and a uniform one across the board.

Appeal to conspiracy is a logical fallacy.

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast."

So is Mormonism.

Frankly, the TEs on here know less then nothing about YEC as a Biblical doctrine. If they do then I am at a loss for how to get them to actually look at the historicity of Scipture and make even the most rudimentary insights into what the Bible actually says. It does not exist in ID, Intelligent Design is natural theology and it was the prevailing view as a theory of origins hundreds of years before Darwin:

You may want to inform today's leading proponents of ID that the movement is a naturalistic concept apart from God, then. Because they've been quoted saying the following:

“Father's words, my studies, and my prayers
convinced me that I should devote my life to
destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to
destroying Marxism. When Father chose me
(along with about a dozen other seminary
graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I
welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for
battle.”
- Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., Unification Church, www.trueparents.org​

"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."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.​

“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.​

Try again because it has been spelled out in no uncertain terms, the progression from simplier to complex forms is the primary a priori assumption underlying Darwinism and you know it.

I don't know it. In fact, even your fellow anti-evolutionists don't know it. If the progression from simpler to more complex life forms did not exist in the fossil record, then people like Morris and Whitcomb would not feel obliged to address the very real issue of fossil sorting and apparent progression in the fossil record. They crack it up to matters of hydrodynamics, ecological zonation and "escape ability", which we all know to be entirely unsubstatiated by evidence.
No, evolution is not an assumption. It is a conclusion that stems from simply observing the fossil record.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Try again because it has been spelled out in no uncertain terms, the progression from simplier to complex forms is the primary a priori assumption underlying Darwinism and you know it.

it is not only not an assumption, it is not even true.

the TofE claims changes over time, not a progression, this is a "leftover" from the progressive era when everything was re-interpreted in terms of progress, including Christianity giving rise to the "social gospel" and evolutionary biology giving rise to "social darwinianism". But neither movements are inherent in their parent systems, these are historical and contingent developments which have been reputiated by many if not most in the continuing systems of each. Evidence for this in the TofE is the evolution of parasites as most forms of life have both a "free swimming" and a parasite species. "Higher forms of life" is a avatism and a long-refuted hangover from these ideas, evolution does not "aim" at complexity, it fits populations to their environment, if this leads to investigation of phenotypic space that is giving rise to a more complex species then it might go there, if to simpler organism it might go there, the driver is random mutations, so in either case it looks like a random walk through the space (both genotypic and phenotypic). In either case, there is no particular bias to the more complex as the above quoted sentence implies.

 

[mark kennedy]

Appeal to conspiracy is a logical fallacy.

A conspiracy theory may well be riddled with fallacy but there is no such thing a an 'appeal to conspiracy' fallacy. That's just plain silly.

So is Mormonism.

So now you want to equate dissent from Darwinism with non christian cults. That's just peachy.

You may want to inform today's leading proponents of ID that the movement is a naturalistic concept apart from God, then. Because they've been quoted saying the following:

“Father's words, my studies, and my prayers
convinced me that I should devote my life to
destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to
destroying Marxism. When Father chose me
(along with about a dozen other seminary
graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I
welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for
battle.”
- Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., Unification Church, www.trueparents.org​

"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."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.​

“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.​

Oh I just have to ask and please feel free to answer as candidly as you are able. Do you agree with the belief in the deity of Christ expressed in these quotes? It makes no difference really as far as the science involved but you seem to be implying that they cannot be unbiased as scientists and philosophers if they hold to one of the central canons of Scripture.

I don't know it. In fact, even your fellow anti-evolutionists don't know it. If the progression from simpler to more complex life forms did not exist in the fossil record, then people like Morris and Whitcomb would not feel obliged to address the very real issue of fossil sorting and apparent progression in the fossil record. They crack it up to matters of hydrodynamics, ecological zonation and "escape ability", which we all know to be entirely unsubstatiated by evidence.
No, evolution is not an assumption. It is a conclusion that stems from simply observing the fossil record.

I don't know about Whitcomb but Henry Morris was a Geology Professor who wrote a well respected textbook on the subject. Of course he is going to approach it from that perspective. Now as far as the fossil record creationists are compelled to consider the evidence and come to an informed opinion. It means very little to me that the world does not like their conclusion, that goes with the territory. Jesus himself would never have won any popularity contests but none the less is both the object of our worship and source of God's final revelation.

I like you Mallon, you know how to take these discussions seriously and still have fun with them. That is more then I can say for amature eggheads like myself who fight furiously over every point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

A conspiracy theory may well be riddled with fallacy but there is no such thing a an 'appeal to conspiracy' fallacy. That's just plain silly.

You misconstrue my words. But your position that there is a vast conspiracy set out to prevent the publication of ID articles on unscientific grounds has no backing. The challenge has gone out before and has yet to be fulfilled by anti-evolutionists: Provide one example of an editor's rejection letter where an ID paper was not published on grounds other than poor science.

So now you want to equate dissent from Darwinism with non christian cults. That's just peachy.

Again, you miscontrue my words. Purposefully, methinks. By saying "The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast", you imply that creationism is growing because it is correct. My point is to simply question whether Mormonism is growing so fast because it, too, is right. According to your logic here, it is.

Oh I just have to ask and please feel free to answer as candidly as you are able. Do you agree with the belief in the deity of Christ expressed in these quotes? It makes no difference really as far as the science involved but you seem to be implying that they cannot be unbiased as scientists and philosophers if they hold to one of the central canons of Scripture.

Of course a scientist may openly profess a faith in Christ. I do every day. But you made the statement that ID "theory" stems from methodological naturalism and is unmotivated by religious belief. I quoted relevant leaders in the school of thought to show you are wrong.

I don't know about Whitcomb but Henry Morris was a Geology Professor who wrote a well respected textbook on the subject.

It was not well-respected by geologists, notably.
Morris wasn't a geologist, either. His degree was in hydraulic engineering. He was qualified to build dams and bridges, not comment on historical geology.
Regardless, my point that even fellow YECs recognize the "progression" from simple to complex life-forms in the fossil record still stands. You don't find anything with a backbone in the Precambrian.

I like you Mallon, you know how to take these discussions seriously and still have fun with them.

I love you as any Christian sibling should. I just vehemently disagree with your take on the interplay of religion and science.