She embraced the E Word as she contemplated the F Word....!

[2PhiloVoid]

That's right. Biologist and (now) Christian, April Maskiewicz Cordero, Ph.D., tells us how she moved through a point in her life where she embraced atheism due to her strong interests in Science, but then later found that she came to a place in her thinking that enabled her to reconsider the Christian Faith even though she, as a Biologist, continued to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Needless to say, I like her style and her way of thinking! (Which isn't surprising since she is affiliated with BioLogos.org.)

So, here's a TED Talk she presented a couple of years ago. Feel free to comment and discuss her talk, if you so wish to do so.

 

[Uber Genius]

Helpful message.

She identifies three myths or misunderstandings:

1. All Christian’s think the same way about evolution as I do

2. Evolution means “Without a creator.”

3. If humans from a common ancestor with other organisms this makes us less special

Almost immediately she makes a distinction about the possible ways theists can share common ground with evolutionists. Namely, that the science makes no claim at falsifying theism.

13:34 makes the distinction between evolution as a scientific explanation vs naturalism as a philosophical system.

She did seem to slip a little and borrow from the ID camp:

15:30 “The more evidence we have from the fossil and genetic data the more reasons we have to worship God, not less.” This is the argument by the intelligent design group, a group that BioLogos vehemently rejects, and yet they want to borrow ID’s awe at the design and complex specified information if by “genetic data” she means complex, specified, info.

The main take away is that one doesn’t have to see one’s worldview as being predicated on scientific pronouncements. As Christians we see God as the uncaused cause or first mover. He often uses secondary causes to accomplish his goals. Further, as she intimated on myth one of the video, Gen 1 and 2 have 7 Conservative interpretations currently. 6 of those are not possible to falsify given current science.

Side Note:

12:10 what has happened to Darwin’s Tree of life? It looks like the proverbial spider web when the spider is on LSD. Oh yeah, needed to obscure the Cambrian “Big Bang” from gradualism hypothesis.

Hopefully we will see less claims of "Creationism," by the uninformed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Helpful message.

She identifies three myths or misunderstandings:

1. All Christian’s think the same way about evolution as I do

2. Evolution means “Without a creator.”

3. If humans from a common ancestor with other organisms this makes us less special

Almost immediately she makes a distinction about the possible ways theists can share common ground with evolutionists. Namely, that the science makes no claim at falsifying theism.

Right on!

13:34 makes the distinction between evolution as a scientific explanation vs naturalism as a philosophical system.

She did seem to slip a little and borrow from the ID camp:

15:30 “The more evidence we have from the fossil and genetic data the more reasons we have to worship God, not less.” This is the argument by the intelligent design group, a group that BioLogos vehemently rejects, and yet they want to borrow ID’s awe at the design and complex specified information if by “genetic data” she means complex, specified, info.

It may seem like she slipped a little bit, but my impression of her talks, and from what I get from a quick perusal of some of her other work, is that she thinks about evolution as an ever amassing set of complex and awe-inspiring phenomena that she appreciates as a form of natural fascination. Of course, these things, when thought about on an intuitive level, can be cause for saying either Yay! or just Meh! In April's case, and unlike proponents of I.D. who see natural phenomena as "clearly indicative of design," it's a cause for Yay!, but one born more for the appreciation of nature as a whole on an intellectual as well as aesthetic level.

The main take away is that one doesn’t have to see one’s worldview as being predicated on scientific pronouncements. As Christians we see God as the uncaused cause or first mover. He often uses secondary causes to accomplish his goals. Further, as she intimated on myth one of the video, Gen 1 and 2 have 7 Conservative interpretations currently. 6 of those are not possible to falsify given current science.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Side Note:

12:10 what has happened to Darwin’s Tree of life? It looks like the proverbial spider web when the spider is on LSD. Oh yeah, needed to obscure the Cambrian “Big Bang” from gradualism hypothesis.

Hopefully we will see less claims of "Creationism," by the uninformed.

That's an interesting note I'll have to look at closer, Uber.

 

[Job 33:6]

What's the F word?

 

[AV1611VET]

Watched until 04:34 and that ended it.

Does she have anything good to say about Christianity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's the F word?

Watch the video and find out, KomatiiteBIF.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Watched until 04:34 and that ended it.

Wow. Please tell me you don't just read MAD magazines by the cover alone, or do you?

Does she have anything good to say about Christianity?

Well, AV, being that she is your sister in Christ, I would suppose that she has something positive to say about Christianity somewhere in the video. Did you catch the part toward the beginning where she said that she's an evangelical Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you catch the part toward the beginning where she said that she's an evangelical Christian?

I did indeed, so I was expecting a little more from her than what I was hearing.

HOWEVER, as you know, I didn't watch the whole thing.

 

[Uber Genius]

April's case, and unlike proponents of I.D. who see natural phenomena as "clearly indicative of design," it's a cause for Yay!, but one born more for the appreciation of nature as a whole on an intellectual as well as aesthetic level.

I thought this might be the case as well. Similarly to how one looks at the Grand Canyon and says "Wow," and is in awe of it without ascribing design.


The genetic code however is so striking because it appears to all to be an information product and everyone across the spectrum of beliefs seems to agree that it has the appearance of design (even Richard Dawkins), I thought maybe she was being a little sloppy. In the way a philosophical naturalist talks about how objectively wrong the Nazi holocaust was, without realizing that he or she is stealing the theist's worldview. But I am undecided on which of the current inferences best describes the data. And if you have other works from her that suggests I read too much into her comments then I will trust your judgement on the matter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did indeed, so I was expecting a little more from her than what I was hearing.

And here I was, thinking to myself, "My, what big ears you have, AV!"

HOWEVER, as you know, I didn't watch the whole thing.

That's ok. I know that ... *ahem*....in your having 'Free Will' as a Baptist, you just had to make that choice, didn't you?

 

[Uber Genius]

Actually, what she's doing is residing within the same working paradigm of Methodological Naturalism that atheist and science educator, Eugenie Scott, as well as Christian geneticist, Francis Collins, work within, as opposed to the other paradigm of Philosophical Naturalism that is utilized by those like Richard Dawkins.

We will need to start a new thread altogether to discuss methodological naturalism. I think that it eliminates scientific questions that other science disciplines use every day. Further it definitially eliminates inferences to causes other than natural ones.

So if a archeologist or a forensic scientist were to apply methodological naturalism they would be instantly and forever unemployed.

Further if I was to ask 1000 or the best geologists why a mountain top in SD has the appearance of 4 previous US Presidents on it, they wouldn't be able to answer that question in a 1000 years.

So something has gone wrong from the start to say that science is the best way of getting out the world we live in and yet it can't make simple pronouncements like, "This structure is manmade."

When SETI was looking for a relatively small amount of complex specified information, in order to claim life on other planets, as compared to the information required for us to recognize 4 heads of 4 former US Presidents, again we say wait, if we applied MN to Carl Sagan's quest we would never be able to get an answer.

So we can take any causal analysis and play the MN game. What caused the pool ball to fall into the corner pocket...Gravity. But what caused it to move...force was transferred from a cue ball to the object ball with angle and velocity. But what caused the cue ball to move?

So if we short-circuit the descriptions so that they are not explanations of efficient cause (to steal a distinction from Aristotle), then we are left with a brute description without answering many of the ultimate questions. In fact we couldn't infer natural causes as efficient causes either given this short circuiting. as MN refuses to ask us why things are the way they are.

This is a thread-worthy discussion. It is controversial and needs deep exploration, not cursory glosses.


Note: Eugenie Scott is best deleted from all references as she is a propagandist. She makes Ray Comfort talking about YEC look credible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We will need to start a new thread altogether to discuss methodological naturalism. I think that it eliminates scientific questions that other science disciplines use every day. Further it definitially eliminates inferences to causes other than natural ones.

So if a archeologist or a forensic scientist were to apply methodological naturalism they would be instantly and forever unemployed.

Further if I was to ask 1000 or the best geologists why a mountain top in SD has the appearance of 4 previous US Presidents on it, they wouldn't be able to answer that question in a 1000 years.

So something has gone wrong from the start to say that science is the best way of getting out the world we live in and yet it can't make simple pronouncements like, "This structure is manmade."

When SETI was looking for a relatively small amount of complex specified information, in order to claim life on other planets, as compared to the information required for us to recognize 4 heads of 4 former US Presidents, again we say wait, if we applied MN to Carl Sagan's quest we would never be able to get an answer.

So we can take any causal analysis and play the MN game. What caused the pool ball to fall into the corner pocket...Gravity. But what caused it to move...force was transferred from a cue ball to the object ball with angle and velocity. But what caused the cue ball to move?

So if we short-circuit the descriptions so that they are not explanations of efficient cause (to steal a distinction from Aristotle), then we are left with a brute description without answering many of the ultimate questions. In fact we couldn't infer natural causes as efficient causes either given this short circuiting. as MN refuses to ask us why things are the way they are.

This is a thread-worthy discussion. It is controversial and needs deep exploration, not cursory glosses.


Note: Eugenie Scott is best deleted from all references as she is a propagandist. She makes Ray Comfort talking about YEC look credible.

I agree. This topic does deserve a thread of its own. And being that the epistemological divide between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism is substantial, and that both of these in turn need to also be compared and contrasted to various forms of Creationism or even that of advocates of Intelligent Design theses, I'll agree that this is a large complex of issues.

Fortunately, these are issue which I studied in connection with my Master's Degree back in my university days, even if not actually at a PhD level. Being that this mixture of N.O.S. issues is highly complex, I'm sure such a thread would make for an interesting discussion. Especially since there is more to all of this than just those epistemic items you've referred to here, and it may very well be that one or both of us are missing some things in the total picture.

Also, I am prone to use Eugenie Scott because, even though she is a promoter of "Evolution Only" in public school education, she is and has been a balwark against those like Richard Dawkins and others like him who not only propagate "Evolution Only" education, but also a firm 'anti-theist' social position. So, while I'm definitely not anti-I.D., and while I do very much lean more toward the position of April Maskiewicz Cordero, I'm not one to strike off of my list of resources some odd-woman such as is atheist, Eugenie Scott. So, I won't be deleting her anytime soon.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, I won't be deleting her anytime soon.

I know Someone who will though.

Revelation 3:5a He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life,

 

[Uber Genius]

and it may very well be that one or both of us are missing some things in the total picture.

I know I am. I have read most of William Dembski and Plantinga's EAAN. And have engaged J.P. Moreland on Naturalism and MN. But I assume I may be missing some major things. It is my baseline assumption.

I'm not one to strike off of my list of sources some odd-woman out such as atheist, Eugenie Scott

So my deletion is not related to her position but how she has misrepresented non-Evolutionary inferences about every chance she gets. I think we could replace her with someone like Massimo Pigliucci and or Francisco Ayala with no loss of informed defense of her position but a great advance in terms of integrity. However, everyone is free to choose who to help them gather data about the world.

 

[Ophiolite]

What's the F word?

I suspect that if you have faith it will eventually be revealed.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suspect that if you have faith it will eventually be revealed.

LOL

 

[juvenissun]

Did you catch the part toward the beginning where she said that she's an evangelical Christian?

If so, she should NOT accept evolution, at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If so, she should NOT accept evolution, at all.

Right, because statements of faith have relevance to wheter or not scientific theories are accurate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know Someone who will though.

Revelation 3:5a He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life,

Indeed, that could happen, but I'd rather focus on those things that we can deliberate on now rather than those things that should be relegated to the field of Futures Studies. Just remember, there is a probability for a future scenario, however slight, in which Eugenie Scott finds Jesus as her Lord and Savior. So, let's hope for the best in her case regarding what could be, and then adopt anything that Eugenie Scott might actually be correct on, despite her atheism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know I am. I have read most of William Dembski and Plantinga's EAAN. And have engaged J.P. Moreland on Naturalism and MN. But I assume I may be missing some major things. It is my baseline assumption.

That makes two of us, then. As I said, I'm by no means a PhD or any other kind of expert on every nuance of scientific praxis that can be studied in relation to any application there may be had by us, whether for or against our Christian faith. But, I'm no neophyte, either.

So my deletion is not related to her position but how she has misrepresented non-Evolutionary inferences about every chance she gets. I think we could replace her with someone like Massimo Pigliucci and or Francisco Ayala with no loss of informed defense of her position but a great advance in terms of integrity. However, everyone is free to choose who to help them gather data about the world.

That's fine by me if you feel she needs to be deleted. I'm not going to holler if you feel you need to do that. I by no means rely on her alone, as you can tell. I like to admit as many relevant (but qualified) voices from the several epistemic positions that exist. It's just that I do think that her critique of Richard Dawkins' praxis, along with that of a few of his partners, is valid.