Question ...

[Jorge]

.
.
For as long as I can recall it has been my experience that the vast majority of Theistic Evolutionists (TE) vehemently oppose Intelligent Design (ID). That always seemed very odd to me and I eventually came to see it as a sort of 'Freudian Slip' in the sense that I have long believed that TE is much more about justifying Naturalism/Materialism than it is about promoting Christianity (but that would be another issue).

Old Earth Creationists (OEC) also participate in this but not quite as much and/or as strongly as do TE.

So, the question to TE and OEC is this:

Why - on what grounds - are you opposed to ID? If you are not opposed to ID then why not?

There is no need to ask Materialists/Humanists/Atheists the first question as the answer is obvious.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

.
.
For as long as I can recall it has been my experience that the vast majority of Theistic Evolutionists (TE) vehemently oppose Intelligent Design (ID). That always seemed very odd to me and I eventually came to see it as a sort of 'Freudian Slip' in the sense that I have long believed that TE is much more about justifying Naturalism/Materialism than it is about promoting Christianity (but that would be another issue).

Old Earth Creationists (OEC) also participate in this but not quite as much and/or as strongly as do TE.

So, the question to TE and OEC is this:

Why - on what grounds - are you opposed to ID? If you are not opposed to ID then why not?

There is no need to ask Materialists/Humanists/Atheists the first question as the answer is obvious.

Jorge

I am not against ID per se, in that to believe God crated the uinverse is to believe that the universe is designd. But what goes by tends to be more of a 'God of the gaps' approach that looks for constructs that can't be explained with current theory, or that, based on current and necessarily crude assessments of probabilities appear naturally impossible. This kind of approach has failed over and over again and tends to assume God's original design was insufficient to become what He intended without explicite intervention - an assumption that may not be true.

And to be specific to the ID that is typically opposed, it's ideas have been shown to be flawed, and in some cases such as the attempts to change the definition of science, intrinsically hostile to good science.

Personally however, I am very much against the sort of witch hunt mentality that want to disallow any discussion of ID concepts in a classroom.


Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

Why - on what grounds - are you opposed to ID?

I'm opposed to putting ID in science classes because there is zero positive evidence for the involvement of any external intelligent designer in the evolution of life on Earth over the last 3.5+ billion years.

ID could be presented as a scientific hypotheses but right now it's not.

[Jorge]

I am not against ID per se, in that to believe God crated the uinverse is to believe that the universe is designd. But what goes by tends to be more of a 'God of the gaps' approach that looks for constructs that can't be explained with current theory, or that, based on current and necessarily crude assessments of probabilities appear naturally impossible. This kind of approach has failed over and over again and tends to assume God's original design was insufficient to become what He intended without explicite intervention - an assumption that may not be true.

And to be specific to the ID that is typically opposed, it's ideas have been shown to be flawed, and in some cases such as the attempts to change the definition of science, intrinsically hostile to good science.

Personally however, I am very much against the sort of witch hunt mentality that want to disallow any discussion of ID concepts in a classroom.


Jim

Interesting. As you know, the NCSE (with many TE members) does vehemently oppose ID to the point of fighting ID tooth-n-nail via legal and other means. And part of their opposition is to keep ID out of the classroom at all costs. Speaking of "witches", Eugenie Scott aggressively led that fight when she headed the NCSE.

You also say that "to believe God crated [sic] the uinverse [sic] is to believe that the universe is designd [sic]". That begs the question, what do you (TE) mean by "designed"? I mean, MY designed universe was designed/made by God complete and finished, there was no chance element in it. YOUR "designed" universe was made to Evolve - it was an 'incomplete' universe ... things had to happen - due to physical laws and by chance - so that, for example, man (eventually) emerged. My (BC) "design" and your (TE) "design" are clearly not the same.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'm opposed to putting ID in science classes because there is zero positive evidence for the involvement of any external intelligent designer in the evolution of life on Earth over the last 3.5+ billion years.

(1) That wasn't the question. (2) I excluded your ideology from answering the question.

ID could be presented as a scientific hypotheses but right now it's not.

Absolutely not true but your rabid, fanatical beliefs have totally blinded you.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

(1) That wasn't the question.

Yes, it was. Too bad if you don't like the answer.

(2) I excluded your ideology from answering the question.

No, you didn't.

Absolutely not true but your rabid, fanatical beliefs have totally blinded you

Feel free to present your testable ID hypothesis along with the finding(s) that would falsify the hypothesis.

[oxmixmudd]

Interesting. As you know, the NCSE (with many TE members) does vehemently oppose ID to the point of fighting ID tooth-n-nail via legal and other means. And part of their opposition is to keep ID out of the classroom at all costs. Speaking of "witches", Eugenie Scott aggressively led that fight when she headed the NCSE.

You also say that "to believe God crated [sic] the uinverse [sic] is to believe that the universe is designd [sic]". That begs the question, what do you (TE) mean by "designed"? I mean, MY designed universe was designed/made by God complete and finished, there was no chance element in it. YOUR "designed" universe was made to Evolve - it was an 'incomplete' universe ... things had to happen - due to physical laws and by chance - so that, for example, man (eventually) emerged. My (BC) "design" and your (TE) "design" are clearly not the same.

Jorge

I believe God designed and created the universe. The specifics of that design is not owned by either of us, but is rather simply what it is. There is no 'my design' or 'your design'. There is only God's design.

Another element you get wrong is the concept that chance implies 'without God'. Scripturally, the disciples cast lots to determine who should be Judus' replacement. They clearly did not see chance as 'without God'

Another is 'complete and finished'. The universe continues to change over time. Stars explode, stars are forming, planets are forming, mountains rise and fall, new islands form or sink into the sea. Even new species form or old species go extinct.



Jim

[Kbertsche]

.
.
For as long as I can recall it has been my experience that the vast majority of Theistic Evolutionists (TE) vehemently oppose Intelligent Design (ID). That always seemed very odd to me and I eventually came to see it as a sort of 'Freudian Slip' in the sense that I have long believed that TE is much more about justifying Naturalism/Materialism than it is about promoting Christianity (but that would be another issue).

Old Earth Creationists (OEC) also participate in this but not quite as much and/or as strongly as do TE.

So, the question to TE and OEC is this:

Why - on what grounds - are you opposed to ID? If you are not opposed to ID then why not?

There is no need to ask Materialists/Humanists/Atheists the first question as the answer is obvious.

Jorge

I like parts of the ID movement, but don't like other parts. I see two somewhat distinct aspects to ID arguments, 1) evidence for intelligent design through fine-tuning, and 2) evidence for intelligent design through gaps in science.

The first line of reasoning presents positive claims, and tends to get stronger as we learn more science. I like this part of ID. But the second line of reasoning is negative, relying on gaps in our current scientific knowledge. This is a "God of the gaps" approach. These arguments tend to get weaker as we learn more science. I think this is a dangerous line of reasoning which does more harm than good.

The first person who I ever heard present fine-tuning arguments for intelligent design is Owen Gingerich, a Harvard astronomer and historian of science, and a TE. This was back in the 1970's, long before the start of the modern ID movement. In Owen's book "God's Universe", I recall that he states support for "intelligent design" (lower case i.d.), but not for "Intelligent Design" (upper case I.D.). I think Francis Collins' view is similar.

[rogue06]

.
.
For as long as I can recall it has been my experience that the vast majority of Theistic Evolutionists (TE) vehemently oppose Intelligent Design (ID). That always seemed very odd to me and I eventually came to see it as a sort of 'Freudian Slip' in the sense that I have long believed that TE is much more about justifying Naturalism/Materialism than it is about promoting Christianity (but that would be another issue).

Old Earth Creationists (OEC) also participate in this but not quite as much and/or as strongly as do TE.

So, the question to TE and OEC is this:

Why - on what grounds - are you opposed to ID? If you are not opposed to ID then why not?

There is no need to ask Materialists/Humanists/Atheists the first question as the answer is obvious.

Jorge

I'm not really "opposed" to ID since in reality TE and ID are actually pretty close. When it first came out I had extremely high hopes for it and was fairly excited by the concept.

What I don't like about it is the often sloppy science that they advance (for me irreducible complexity was a fiasco from the start) and the intermittently dishonest approach taken by some of its proponents (claiming in front of one audience that it is pure science with no religious overtures and turning around and promoting its deep religious roots before a different audience).

[Jorge]

I believe God designed and created the universe. The specifics of that design is not owned by either of us, but is rather simply what it is. There is no 'my design' or 'your design'. There is only God's design.

I certainly do not know the details or completeness of God's design. No one does. But that doesn't mean that we don't/can't know anything of God's design. And how do we know what little we know? Because of His Special Revelation, that's how. The material observations only provide an imperfect glimpse ("we see as though through a dark glass") of God's creation. God's Word, on the other hand, tells us directly so that out impaired vision doesn't get in the way. The observations then serve to support what God's Word tells us, but only do so in part. Science and technology is based on accumulated imperfect/incomplete observations.

Another element you get wrong is the concept that chance implies 'without God'. Scripturally, the disciples cast lots to determine who should be Judus' replacement. They clearly did not see chance as 'without God'

Clearly you do not understand the concept of 'chance' - certainly not within a biblical framework. Given the rest of your theology, that comes as no surprise. That the disciples cast lots is a measure of the ignorance of the DISCIPLES - not of God. If you believe that there is an element of 'chance' for God then in one fell swoop you have obliterated one of God's key attributes: His omniscience. You really want to go there? Really?

Another is 'complete and finished'. The universe continues to change over time. Stars explode, stars are forming, planets are forming, mountains rise and fall, new islands form or sink into the sea. Even new species form or old species go extinct.

AGAIN you are totally confused. There is a fundamentally significant difference between change in a creation that is ALREADY completed versus change so that the creation MAY BECOME completed. Meditate on that for a spell.

A humongous amount of Materialistic influence oozes from most posts of yours, O-Mudd.
Truth be told, I understand very well why you cannot grasp the things I tell you.
Figuratively: I'm speaking Greek while you only speak Swahili.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I like parts of the ID movement, but don't like other parts. I see two somewhat distinct aspects to ID arguments, 1) evidence for intelligent design through fine-tuning, and 2) evidence for intelligent design through gaps in science.

The first line of reasoning presents positive claims, and tends to get stronger as we learn more science. I like this part of ID. But the second line of reasoning is negative, relying on gaps in our current scientific knowledge. This is a "God of the gaps" approach. These arguments tend to get weaker as we learn more science. I think this is a dangerous line of reasoning which does more harm than good.

The first person who I ever heard present fine-tuning arguments for intelligent design is Owen Gingerich, a Harvard astronomer and historian of science, and a TE. This was back in the 1970's, long before the start of the modern ID movement. In Owen's book "God's Universe", I recall that he states support for "intelligent design" (lower case i.d.), but not for "Intelligent Design" (upper case I.D.). I think Francis Collins' view is similar.

The "God of the Gaps" is a purposefully-constructed straw man argument and is intellectually dishonest to boot - enough on that.

The fine-tuning is clear enough - solid both logically and empirically - and on its own merits should compel any honest scholar to immediately consider ID. Of course, as we all know, it does not. Why?

I'll give you my answer (an answer that I came to back in the 1980's): this entire matter is not about "science", it never has been - "science" is just a ruse. This matter is actually entirely ideological. Science may (and does at times) play a supportive role. But the core of the matter is ideological, not scientific. Ergo, what should be 'compelling science' ends up taking a back seat to the ideological agenda. THAT, in a nutshell, explains why what should slam-dunk the case for ID does not.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'm not really "opposed" to ID since in reality TE and ID are actually pretty close. When it first came out I had extremely high hopes for it and was fairly excited by the concept.

OK.

What I don't like about it is the often sloppy science that they advance

You're a TE and you dare speak of "sloppy science"? WOW!!!

(for me irreducible complexity was a fiasco from the start)

It wasn't a "fiasco" at the start, in the middle or now. You've been swallowing too much propaganda.

and the intermittently dishonest approach taken by some of its proponents (claiming in front of one audience that it is pure science with no religious overtures and turning around and promoting its deep religious roots before a different audience).

Once again the signs of 'parroted propaganda' in the above are glaring. From Day One the distinction had been made. I know this first-hand because I had an email exchange with Bill Dembski over 14 years ago in which I suggested that they make the connection more transparent (not that they were hiding it, I was suggesting that it be more integrated and explicit) so as to eliminate even the possibility for later accusations. What the ID movement opted to do (which I thought was a mistake and, unfortunately, time proved me right) was to make it a two-step approach: one 'purely scientific' and the other where 'religion was brought onto the table'. What I tried telling them was that this was going to fail (it did).

Nonetheless, ALL of this was clearly spelled out - no tricks or hiding - in their writings (again, I know because I have most of their writings). Dembski's book, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Religion covered this almost 18 years ago yet here you are parroting the same false propaganda. BTW, I know about Dover, Barbara Forrest, Of Pandas and People, etc ... etc. The historical facts on this remain the same.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

Clearly you do not understand the concept of 'chance' - certainly not within a biblical framework. Given the rest of your theology, that comes as no surprise. That the disciples cast lots is a measure of the ignorance of the DISCIPLES - not of God. If you believe that there is an element of 'chance' for God then in one fell swoop you have obliterated one of God's key attributes: His omniscience. You really want to go there? Really?

"Chance" in a mathematical or scientific sense does not preclude God from directing the outcome. I can't explain how this works scientifically; there are no "hidden variables" in the science which God can use. But God transcends science. Thus we can have real chance controlled by an omniscient God.

Source: Prov 16:33

The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the LORD. (NASB)

The dice are thrown into the lap,
but their every decision is from the LORD. (NET)

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

Emphasis mine:

and the intermittently dishonest approach taken by some of its proponents (claiming in front of one audience that it is pure science with no religious overtures and turning around and promoting its deep religious roots before a different audience).

Once again the signs of 'parroted propaganda' in the above are glaring. ... What the ID movement opted to do (which I thought was a mistake and, unfortunately, time proved me right) was to make it a two-step approach: one 'purely scientific' and the other where 'religion was brought onto the table'

So the ID movement did exactly what KB said they did: promote ID as pure science in some circumstances, but as religious in others.

'Intelligent deign' is a sham, it exists purely to disguise creationism, and Jorge the welcher is too stupid to realise that the ID leaders were hiding their religious motives, and that he has fallen for the propaganda. .

[Kbertsche]

I certainly do not know the details or completeness of God's design. No one does. But that doesn't mean that we don't/can't know anything of God's design. And how do we know what little we know? Because of His Special Revelation, that's how. The material observations only provide an imperfect glimpse ("we see as though through a dark glass") of God's creation. God's Word, on the other hand, tells us directly so that out impaired vision doesn't get in the way. The observations then serve to support what God's Word tells us, but only do so in part. Science and technology is based on accumulated imperfect/incomplete observations.

This is a common YEC claim, of course. I have two problems with it: 1) it is fundamentally wrong-headed, and 2) it conflicts with Scripture.

Your claim is wrong-headed in that it makes the a priori assumption of conflict between science and Scripture, pits the two against one another, then discounts general revelation to resolve the perceived conflicts. One could take exactly the same approach between the OT and the NT: the OT was incomplete, providing an imperfect glimpse of truth; the NT is more complete. So whenever we see an apparent conflict between OT and NT, we should just discount what the OT says. But I don't think many Christians (even YECs) would take this position. Instead, we make the a priori assumption of consistency (not conflict) between the OT and the NT, and we seek to interpret both in a way to resolve the conflicts. If we truly believe that God is the author of both general and special revelation, we should take the same approach for perceived conflicts between science and faith.

Your claim conflicts with Scripture in that it says that general revelation is unclear and misleading. But Paul said otherwise (emphasis mine below):

Source: Rom 1:19-20, NET

because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

© Copyright Original Source

Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly. The reason that people reject this revelation is not related to its clarity, but to man's fallen nature. The problem is with man, not with general revelation. This fallen nature affects man's acceptance of special revelation just as much as it does his acceptance of general revelation.