ID and Theistic Evolution
Ed Brayton calls attention to the “exchange of views” between P. Z. Myers and Wesley Elsberry. As any reader of this blog will know, I’m siding with Wesley Elsberry.
But this whole debate continues to annoy me. Why is it that people have to care what someone believes about something that is not going to impact their science. Even Myers agrees, for example, that Kenneth Miller (with Levine) have written some excellent science texts. So who cares precisely what they believe when the issue is science?
Yes, when dealing with political issues, that is going to come up. Even my name, as poorly known as it is, gets brought up in church. “Henry’s a Bible teacher and he accepts evolution.” Depending on the position of the person saying it, imagine a tone either of passing a dirty secret or of triumph, as in “It’s OK then.”
The fact that I accept evolution is not in any sense a scientific reason for someone to accept the theory. But such is life in this fine world of ours. Some people accept or reject things because people that they respect accept them. In fact, much of the following of creationism exists, not because people have actually studied the issue, but because they are following the opinions of people who have the “right” theological views.
That’s not good. They should change it. But it’s a fact of life.
In the meantime, for those challenged by nuances and gradations in ideas, try this. ID advocates think God tinkers along the way in an identifiable way. Theistic evolutions expect to find the same physical things as atheistic evolutionists, but they also believe in God. There won’t be any difference in a science text written by a theistic and an atheistic evolutionist–unless they get off the subject. Kenneth Miller’s scientific writings are exhibit A.
Now in politics and theology, all bets are off. 🙂
Why is it that people have to care what someone believes about something that is not going to impact their science?
Because said people see science as an ideal rather than “just” a process or community or body of knowledge. They feel that anyone who supports science but doesn’t subscribe to this ideal is missing the point.
I personally agree with the theory but not the practice – I think that the argument is sound but that TEs are really, really, really low down on the list of threats to reality-based thinking.
Interesting. I think that the ideal as stated is a bit narrow, and I question the validity of the phrase “reality based thinking.” But both of those are long topics.
In making those statements I suspect I confirm my threat status–low level, but there nonetheless. 🙂
(I don’t know how to make a threatening smiley!)
I believe in God and I also can see evidence of evolution. For me, belief in God and acceptance that evolution has occured over time are not mutually exclusive beliefs. I think rigidity on either side limits God. My faith was not shaken simply because I learned about evolution (ie. “change over time”). If anything, learning about evolution enhanced my faith in our God as a master creator. But maybe I’m just weird. That’s entirely possible. 🙂
Interesting. I think that the ideal as stated is a bit narrow, and I question the validity of the phrase reality based thinking. But both of those are long topics.
Well, ideals are pretty narrow by definition, in the same way that the bullseye is the smallest ring of a dartboard. If you meant that it’s simplistic then I’d actually agree with you, but I’d argue that it’s still valid in the majority of cases.
I’d be interested to know why you don’t think “reality based thinking” is a valid concept. I’ve been defining it as the idea that, at least in the comfort of your own head, ideas should be judged by scientific value* rather than emotional impact.
* Scientific value := predictivity, with parsimony as a tie-breaker. The importance of this positivist approach can be derived from basic utilitarian principles.
D’oh, I really should try to get the hang of this tree-style comment threading.
I like the threading, but I think a majority of my readers do not. At least few of them make use of it.
Your definition positioned the thought quite nicely. This seems, however, to be the basic issue between our respective positions, discussed a bit in my response to The God Delusion. I believe that in studying the physical world “reality based thinking” as you have defined it is the only way to go.
But since I believe that there is something beyond what we can study scientifically, I’m automatically on irrational ground from your perspective. It provides the dividing line. That’s why we end up with a sort of limited alliance. As I recall from your comments here we’d agree on desiring a secular society and on the teaching of evolution (exclusively) in high school science classes.
My claim is that there is something beyond the reality studied by your reality based thinking. I cannot, however, demonstrate that using reality based thinking as you define it, because that thinking denies it as a possibility.
I wouldn’t say my thinking denies it as a possibility; rather, it points out that, unless there’s some way to test a belief against the evidence, that belief is de facto useless.
As far as we can tell, belief in God is useless. Faith doesn’t move mountains, prayer doesn’t save lives, and the side-effects of placing belief over evidence can be painfully ironic.
We may be confusing two definitions of “reality” here. I’m not just talking about one universe, or one kind of material, or only stuff we can see or touch. I’m talking about all that and everything we can deduce from that. Gods, demons, ghosts, ghouls could all easily fall within this remit. All I’d need to believe is evidence that belief could potentially have any practical consequences whatsoever.
I don’t say “God doesn’t exist”; I just ask “if you have no good evidence, why do you believe in Him?”
Dammit, I finally get the hang of threading and my HTML goes kablooey.
Devotional Verse of the Day
05/24/07
“Blessed be God, which hath nor turned away my prayer.”
–Psalm 66:20
In looking back upon the character of our prayers, if we do it honestly, we shall be filled with wonder that God has ever answered them. There may be some who think their I prayers worthy of acceptance–as the Pharisee did; but the true Christian, in a more enlightened retrospect, weeps over his prayers, and if he could retrace his steps he would desire to pray more earnestly.
Remember, Christian, how cold thy prayers have been. When in thy closet thou shouldst have wrestled as Jacob did; but instead thereof, thy petitions have been faint and few–far removed from that humble, believing, persevering faith, which cries, “I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me.” Yet, wonderful to say, God has heard these cold prayers of thine, and not only heard, but answered them.
Reflect also, how infrequent have been thy prayers, unless thou hast been in trouble, and then thou hast gone often to the mercy-seat: but when deliverance has come, where has been thy constant supplication? Yet, notwithstanding thou hast ceased to pray as once thou didst, God has not ceased to bless.
When thou hast neglected the mercy-seat, God has not deserted it, but the bright light of the Shekinah has always been visible between the wings of the cherubim.
Oh! it is marvellous that the Lord should regard those intermittent spasms of importunity which come and go with our necessities.
What a God is He thus to hear the prayers of those who come to Him when they have pressing wants, but neglect Him when they have received a mercy; who approach Him when they are forced to come, but who almost forget to address Him when mercies are plentiful and sorrows are few. Let His gracious kindness in hearing such prayers touch our hearts, so that we may henceforth be found “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit.”
Yours for Him
http://Bible.Godadsense.com
Corkscrew, I understand your doubts about belief in God being useful. It certainly isn’t useful in the sense of being some kind of universal panacea for all ills. But surely the more important question is whether it is true, that is whether God really exists and is active in the world. Perhaps you should look at the evidence for that. And for that I would suggest that you consider not so much issues of creation and evolution, for the most this can prove is a semi-deistic God who is not involved in lives today. I suggest you look first at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. You will find that he was not just a good teacher, but the divine Son of God who was raised from the dead, is alive today, and wants to have a relationship with you. And when you have that relationship, you will discover the true usefulness for you of faith, not as a panacea but as having a Person alongside you in all the bad as well as good things of life.
Right, this time I have an excuse not to use threading – it’s telling me I can’t respond directly to Peter’s comment.
Corkscrew, I understand your doubts about belief in God being useful. It certainly isnt useful in the sense of being some kind of universal panacea for all ills. But surely the more important question is whether it is true, that is whether God really exists and is active in the world.
That is indeed the important question. Unfortunately, however, there is no way to tell whether a model of the universe is true. In most cases the best we can do is demonstrate that it survives exposure to evidence.
The standard way of doing this is to derive novel predictions from it and test those predictions. This is actually what I meant by “useful” – the ability to produce accurate predictions is obviously very handy.
When we apply this most important of tests to models of the universe that incorporate God, we find that they are either:
1) inaccurate
2) unpredictive (e.g. there’s no way to expose them to evidence)
3) redundant – God turns out not to be a necessary part of the model
None of these options bodes well for God. As far as understanding the behaviour of our universe goes, He seems to be a complete waste of neurons.
Perhaps you should look at the evidence for that. […] I suggest you look first at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. You will find that he was not just a good teacher, but the divine Son of God who was raised from the dead, is alive today, and wants to have a relationship with you.
Only if the Bible is accurate in its depiction of Jesus. I’ve read most of the Bible at one time or another and I’m unconvinced by its historicity.
To pick a simple example, the whole section in Matthew and Luke about Joseph and Mary having to go to Bethlehem for a census is complete mince. The census in question is known to have occurred two years after King Herod’s death. Even if this weren’t an issue, the idea that Joseph would have to go to Bethlehem because he was David’s greatgreatgreat……grandson is ridiculous.
(And there’s another issue there, which is: why do Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies for Joseph, with almost no overlap?)
The entire thing about going to Bethlehem is a fairly blatant post-hoc adjustment to Jesus’ life story so that it fits the Old Testament prophecies. This is regrettably common – for example, the whole bit about the virgin birth is believed to relate to a mistranslation of the Hebrew for “young woman”. The Gospel writer read the dodgy translation and decided that Jesus should fulfil this “prophecy”.
I could go on like this for hours. Bottom line is that I’m not exactly approaching this question from a position of ignorance.
And when you have that relationship, you will discover the true usefulness for you of faith, not as a panacea but as having a Person alongside you in all the bad as well as good things of life.
Actually, I can understand that as a reason for faith. It’s a different “level” of usefulness from the scientific usefulness I was previously referring to, but it could be argued that it’s no less valid.
However, at present I’m doing OK for relationships and general ability to handle life. As such, I personally am not interested in weakening my grasp of reality to provide accommodation for an imaginary friend.
Not really. Strictly speaking, the only impact of evolutionary biology on theology is to smash the Argument From Design into itty bitty pieces.
This is of significance only to those of us who:
a) can’t find any other credible arguments for God’s existence
b) think that, in the absence of credible arguments, the only sensible response is disbelief
If you already believe in God’s existence on other grounds, your current stance is IMO as rational as it’s possible to get.
Thank you, Corkscrew. I could go on for hours refuting your arguments which go on for hours. In fact the biblical argument for the resurrection does not depend on the reliability of the Bible, for if the story is simply made up you have to explain who made it up and why – and there is no good explanation other than that the events actually happened. But anyway this is not a matter of winning an argument but about looking for evidence in changed lives. As for yourself, maybe when your life isn’t going so well you will realise that you are missing something in it.