Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

I'm going to slightly differ on this point: I don't see I.D. as a threat or danger. I simply see its epistemological conclusions as either unclear, incomplete and/or underdetermined. I don't know that where criteria of signification are concerned that it's outright wrong on all counts. If anything, it feels like a philosophical attempt to inject more scienc-y thinking into the old Cosmological arguments.

As I wrote in a university paper years ago, I'll listen to I.D. arguments on the level of philosophical propositions, but not as science proper (yet).

On the other hand, I do see Philosophical Naturalism as a danger to one's having hope in life that means anything.

This is fine, but I think the reality of the ID movement is one in which they're attempting to make it into a scientific position. Which I think is my key issue.

Everyone is fine with the theological stance of God's engagement in creation. The issue is that this isn't how the ID movement itself operates.

 

[Job 33:6]

Have you read Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton? The intro sounds like philosophical naturalism with a designer somewhere off in the unknowable.

Exactly this.

If the ID movement didn't structure itself as a scientific position, then I don't think that there would be a conflict. But because it does, it places itself into conflict with natural mechanisms, rather than being flexible in allowing God to use both natural and supernatural mechanisms. Which is theologically and scientifically very problematic.

But it inherently has to be in conflict with natural mechanisms, because if it isn't, then it ends up becoming meaningless. Ie why would anyone believe in ID over theistic evolution?

 

[o_mlly]

So, I'm just wondering, o_mlly. Are you a 7-day Creationist?

No.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is fine, but I think the reality of the ID movement is one in which they're attempting to make it into a scientific position. Which I think is my key issue.

That danger was diminished by the Dover Trial, in which ID was found to be creationism adjusted a bit in hopes of being presented as science. The trial was, in the words of ID founder Philip Johnson, "a train wreck" for ID. At one point in the trial, a prominent IDer admitted that ID was a science in the same sense that astrology is a science.

 

[o_mlly]

Everyone saw the statement. No point in you denying it. Let's take another look...

According to the widely accepted scientific account ... it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

There you go. Not an affirmation; only reporting. Glad I could help.

From the same document:

In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.​

So much for evos claim that mutations, whether of necessity or contingency, are random.

Like most creationists, you've confused the origin of life with evolution. The "widely accepted scientific account" is about how life began. This-
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Strawmanning and using the Goebbels Propaganda Method, again? "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." Careful.

Lookup William Lilly, English astrologer who wrote Christian Astrology (1647). Seems quite similar to a modern day Christian MacroEvolutoinist, don't you think?

If you're allowed to toss out any Bible verses ...

You mean like the Bible verse you tossed out first? Kettle black?

Which includes an explanation as to how humans evolved from other organisms. But not how. That is what religion does for us.

Did you mean to write, "But not why"? If so you make my point. Newton had no explanation as to why or why not gravity and was honest enough to admit so. His humility should be an example for you.

Because it demotes the Creator to a mere "maybe a space alien" designer ...

Nonsense.

Design is what limited creatures do.

More of the same nonsense from evos:

Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, Article 3, Question 2).​

​

 

[o_mlly]

Intelligent design is actually quite dangerous theologically for the church.

No, not at all. Dangerous to macroevolutionists, yes.

One of the core issues at play is IDs efforts to separate natural events from Gods sustaining work. As though, if something has a natural explanation, it must not be the work of the Lord.

? ID does not do that.

... the whole ID position breaks down because it doesn't offer a competitive mechanism of creation.

Do you have the mechanism that explains why gravity exists?

 

[Job 33:6]

? ID does not do that.

Sure it does. When is the last time you've heard an ID advocate say "hey, maybe God used evolution to create life?"

Do you have the mechanism that explains why gravity exists?

Physics explains how gravity behaves, not why being exists. ID doesn’t explain how design operates at all, it just labels unexplained complexity.

Gravity has a mechanism within physics (the theory of general relativity); God is not offered as a competing force. ID treats design as a rival causal explanation, which is exactly the problem.

Just think about. Replace the theory of evolution with the theory of general relativity. ID attempts to argue that "The theory of general relativity" is not true. Rather than considering that God might operate through it or with use of it as a mechanism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you read Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton? The intro sounds like philosophical naturalism with a designer somewhere off in the unknowable.

No, I haven't read Denton specifically, although back 20 years ago when I was doing class research in relation to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, his name came up.

 

[o_mlly]

When is the last time you've heard an ID advocate say "hey, maybe God used evolution to create life?"

When did you ever hear an ID advocate say, "Hey, maybe God did not create life?"

ID doesn’t explain how design operates at all, it just labels unexplained complexity.

Oh, it certainly does. Might be a good new thread to start.

If the science departments had done a good enough job in explaining how life began then there would not be a need for an ID theory. They didn't. So, better to punt this matter back to the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Theology. Science has nothing to offer. Macroevolution is next. Ironic isn't it, "Science of the Gaps"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is fine, but I think the reality of the ID movement is one in which they're attempting to make it into a scientific position. Which I think is my key issue.

Yes, you're right. A number of them have been promoting their philosophical position as deserving a spot in the modern secular science classroom.

Everyone is fine with the theological stance of God's engagement in creation. The issue is that this isn't how the ID movement itself operates.

Yes, I agree with you on that point too being that we all know many if not most of those in the I.D. movement are Christians of a more evangelical persuasion (with the exception of David Berlinski, who oddly enough is essentially a Jewish agnostic).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No.

Ok. You're not a 7 day Creationist.

So then, by what epistemological and theological set of interpretive criteria are we to clearly and absolutely discern a single position on "creation" from a dozen which are made to compete among various fellow Christians?

 

[o_mlly]

So then, by what epistemological and theological set of interpretive criteria are we to clearly and absolutely discern a single position on "creation" from a dozen which are made to compete among various fellow Christians?

As I posted earlier, St. Augustine affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture: “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

 

[Job 33:6]

When did you ever hear an ID advocate say, "Hey, maybe God did not create life?"

? You're leaving the point. ID doesn't accept the possibility that God might use natural mechanisms such as those of the theory of evolution. That's just not part of their movement, never has been.

Oh, it certainly does. Might be a good new thread to start.

Well, no ID advocate has any scientific publications on the matter, so I would have to disagree. ID doesn't have a mechanism to compete with theory of evolution because it is in-reality, a theological position.

If the science departments had done a good enough job in explaining how life began then there would not be a need for an ID theory. They didn't. So, better to punt this matter back to the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Theology. Science has nothing to offer. Macroevolution is next. Ironic isn't it, "Science of the Gaps"?

If it is a matter of theology, then let it be theology. But the problem is that the arguments they make are attempts at science.

And the theory of evolution has a plethora of mechanisms. Observing things like mutations, genetic drive, or having testable predictions such as those of the fossil record, these are not gaps, they're data-points. ID alternatively doesn't make predictions, it simply accommodates with theological claims. Hence my post above. Nobody knows what ID advocates even believe because they have no formal theory or mechanisms of their own.

We know that many ID advocates dispute evolution. The question is, what mechanisms do they propose as an alternative? No one knows.

 

[The Barbarian]

According to the widely accepted scientific account ... it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

There you go.

Well, let's restore the part you edited out to change the meaning...
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Like most creationists, you've confused the origin of life with evolution. The "widely accepted scientific account" is about how life began. This-
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

-is about something else, the evolution of humans from other organisms. That, the Vatican says, is "virtually certain." No point in denying it. This is the second time you tried that ploy. C'mon.

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

I wouldn't be so sure. Be careful.

From the same document:
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.

So now you've switched sides, again? I though you claimed that there was no such things as random change. And here you've cited the Church saying that there is. What you seem to balk at, is the idea that God can use contingency to effect His will. Why not just let it be His way?

Lookup William Lilly, English astrologer who wrote Christian Astrology (1647). Seems quite similar to a modern day Christian MacroEvolutoinist, don't you think?

When IDer Michael Behe admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, he also admitted that scientists today would not consider either to be science because they do not depend on testable claims confirmed by evidence.

If you're allowed to toss out any Bible verses that say things you don't like you end up with the Jefferson Bible. And a huge pile of rejected scripture.

You mean like the Bible verse you tossed out first?

You denied that there is such a thing as randomness. I showed you, in Ecclesiastes, that God says otherwise. C'mon.

Newton had no explanation as to why or why not gravity and was honest enough to admit so.

Darwin had no explanation as to why or why not random variation and was honest enough to admit so. Evolutionary theory is more solid than gravitational theory; we now know why random variation occurs, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravitation occurs.

Christians object to ID because it demotes the Creator to a mere "maybe a space alien" designer. Design is what limited creatures do. God creates. ID is merely disrespectful to God. And interestingly, engineers have discovered that evolution is more efficient than design for solving very complex problems. Would you like to learn about that? It turns out, God knew best, after all.

Nonsense.

Take that up with Phillip Johnson, who invented ID. That's what he says. And it is a fact that engineers now use evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too difficult for design. They are called "genetic algorithms." Want to learn about them?

Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, Article 3, Question 2).

Which is what the Church is trying to tell you, if you'd just listen. Populations can't evolve to higher fitness, unless the universe itself is created such that it happens. Just as gravitation won't happen unless the universe is created such that it happens. A rock doesn't seek to fall, and population doesn't seek to evolve. Think about it; it's not that difficult. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end, and this being we call God. Why not just accept it that way?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I posted earlier, St. Augustine affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture: “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

So then, if the above is indeed the case, would you agree with the following heuristic?: When reading the Bible and in doubt about its meaning, hermeneutics requires nothing more that to read something by St. Augustine?

 

[The Barbarian]

You're leaving the point. ID doesn't accept the possibility that God might use natural mechanisms such as those of the theory of evolution. That's just not part of their movement, never has been.

Not all IDers are religious cranks. From Nature's Destiny, by Michael Denton:
t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
...
Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not all IDers are religious cranks. From Nature's Destiny, by Michael Denton:
t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
...
Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Yea, well isn't this the scary part. It's like the polar opposite in which God is nowhere to be seen, as though it's some kind of deistic position.

No one knows what ID is. Maybe it's deism. Maybe it's YECism. Maybe it falls more in line with Berlinskis agnosticism. But one thing is for sure, it is certainly not science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yea, well isn't this the scary part. It's like the polar opposite in which God is nowhere to be seen, as though it's some kind of deistic position.

From what I get, Denton isn't necessarily thinking of a god per se. It looks like a revival of natural teleology.

 

[o_mlly]

ID doesn't accept the possibility that God might use natural mechanisms such as those of the theory of evolution. That's just not part of their movement, never has been.

You are mistaken.

Well, no ID advocate has any scientific publications on the matter, so I would have to disagree. ID doesn't have a mechanism to compete with theory of evolution because it is in-reality, a theological position.

They have scientific publications on the matter. Just google it. The ID theory uses the scientific method to arrive at its conclusion just as evos do. ID does posit an immaterial cause for some of those observations that are not explained by materialistic means. Is the universe intelligible? Do you not use human intelligence to arrive at your material claims for the diversity of life?

We know that many ID advocates dispute evolution. The question is, what mechanisms do they propose as an alternative? No one knows.

Rather than hijack this thread ("Evolution Conflict and Division") any further, may I suggest you do some research on ID and start a new thread to rationally dispute ID claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are mistaken.

They have scientific publications on the matter. Just google it. The ID theory uses the scientific method to arrive at its conclusion just as evos do. ID does posit an immaterial cause for some of those observations that are not explained by materialistic means. Is the universe intelligible? Do you not use human intelligence to arrive at your the material claims for the diversity of life?

And what are the scientific mechanisms or theory that they've published on, that clarify how this "immaterial cause" works? And what scientific journal do you know of that publishes on immaterial causes to begin with?

Rather than hijack this thread ("Evolution Conflict and Division") any further, may I suggest you do some research on ID and start a new thread to rationally dispute ID claims.

There is nothing to refute because they don't have any published scientific mechanisms.

The key issue is this: Inference to design may be a philosophical argument, but science requires specifying causal mechanisms (such as mutations or genetic drift, mechanisms of speciation etc.). The moment ID appeals to an immaterial cause, it stops being a scientific explanation and becomes metaphysical.

And I'm not saying that philosophical arguments are bad or wrong to consider. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't be trying to confuse them with science. And this is step 1 with understanding the chronic issues of the ID movement and why after decades of time it has made no progress in countering the theory of evolution. The first step is to recognize that ID isn't actually scientific (despite their efforts to make it appear as though it were), rather it is theological, ideological, and philosophical, among other things.

Also, ID is well known as a movement that opposes the theory of evolution. But if you're interested in continuing elsewhere, you're welcome to make a thread.