Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Why I Oppose ID

    . . . and how I oppose it.

    There has been an interesting flap that started when MikeGene at Telic Thoughts proposed a typology of ID critics, and Ed Brayton responded, with further response again from MikeGene.

    I think most of what needs to be said has already been said in those posts and the comments attached to them. I have to note that while I find Telic Thoughts a much more thoughtful and useful blog to read than Uncommon Descent (Translation: I now read the former, but not the latter!), my initial reaction to the typology was much less positive than Ed’s. There is, however, a point to the whole thing, which MikeGene makes. After quoting the following from Ed’s post:

    There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the “ID=religion/God” stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as “Creationists” and “threats to Science.”

    He then says:

    Yet he then spends the rest of his blog demonstrating that my description was on track, as he tries to justify his broad brushed approach that includes stereotypes and labels. I have dealt with all his arguments before, and may rehash them again. But for now, I can simply point out that while I am willing to make a distinction between someone like Ed Brayton and Richard Dawkins, Ed apparently wants to lump me with Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, where, I suppose, the TT contributors are all nothing more than players in a “PR campaign to place a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terminology over good old-fashioned religious anti-evolutionism.”

    Will the critics of ID ever break free of their stereotypes and realize that not all proponents of ID can be painted with the same broad brush?

    There is a good point here, but it is one that is not carried through.

    (more…)

  • Joe Meert in Conversation with John Baumgardner

    The Florida Citizens for Science blog has an interesting account of a conversation between Joe Meert (Florida Citizens for Science vice-chair) and John Baumgardner, geophysicist and young earth creationist. It’s worth reading. Joe asks the right questions.

    You can find it here.

  • Developments on the Plagiarism Front

    There have been a couple of very interesting posts about the flap over Judge Jones’s alleged (falsely it turns out) plagiarism in the Kitzmiller decision. I pointed out previously that I saw this as essentially a broad scatter ad hominem attack that reflects no credit on those who perpretrated it.

    In the meantime, if there are any of my readers who do not also read The Panda’s Thumb, they might like to look at Now That’s Video to Look Forward To for some fun notes from Dr. Kenneth Miller (via Wesley Elsberry). This was, of course, in response to Dembski’s video caricature of Judge Jones. There slightly more informaiton on this in Dembski’s Motive, which simply illustrates what I said earlier. This is a simple case of an ad hominem attack designed to leave a bad feeling behind. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter in the least to those who take this approach.

    I think that’s all for me for now on this topic.

  • Critical Thinking and the Attack on Judge Jones

    In my Bible Translations FAQ, I respond to a common question about Bible translation and about the NIV in particular. Let me quote my basic response first, and then I’ll discuss why I’m bringing this up now. No, this is not a post about Bible translation, though I’m going to use a translation issue as an illustration.

    (more…)

  • ID = Intense Desperation?

    Or perhaps it had set in a long time ago. I hadn’t really meant to comment on the current uproar about the Discovery Institute’s apparent “discovery” that part of Judge Jones’s ruling in the Dover case came “almost verbatim” from the propose findings of fact from the plaintiff’s attorneys. I’m not an attorney, and I hardly consider myself qualified to discuss that. But I can read, and I can see what’s similar and what’s not, and I can smell desperation.

    As a non-lawyer, some interesting questions come to mind.

    1. Did it take them this long to compare the proposed findings of fact with the final decision?
    2. What were they doing in the meantime, counting the pixels in each letter?
    3. Is there possibly some reason to conclude that other tactics having failed, this is a desperate attempt to catch the unwary by making claims that sound terrible, but that the average person doesn’t actually understand?
    4. Does anybody other than me find the combination of citing percentages in tenths of a percent (90.9%) with a phrase like “virtually verbatim” (see Discovery institute quote here and the original press release source below) to be a troubling case of using math to imply greater exactness than one’s data actually supports? OK, that one may seem more obscure, but it will be understood as 90.9% identical by many readers, and the one thing DI has is good media manipulators.

    (more…)

  • Hiding the Evidence about Human Evolution

    This one has been going on for some time now, but it is still an active fight of which we should remain aware. Kenyan Pentecostals are trying to prevent the display of Kenya’s famous humanoid fossils in the national museum along with their evolutionary explanation. (See the ABC News story here.)

    The major complaint is that the theory of human evolution presented with the fossils is presented as fact. But the actual fact is that there is no alternative scientific explanation for these fossils. Christians should not be involved in trying to hid the evidence. I think it’s a hopeless task, but the only way to provide an honest reason to present an honest explanation would be to produce such a scientific explanation–coherent, testable,and capable of explaining the available evidence. I’m not holding my breath.

    powered by performancing firefox

  • The Danger of Unchanging Truth

    Recently, I’ve written a bit about the difference between science and theology. One of the key differences is that science expects to change, whereas if theology is not assuming it is founded on bedrock, it is usually looking for some bedrock. Religious people often criticize science on the basis that it changes too often. Its history is one of repeatedly overturned theories.

    (more…)

  • How God Impacts Science

    There’s been a bit of a dust-up around the blogosphere about this over the last few days to a large extent amongst people involved in science professionally in one way or another. Since I’m not responding directly, I will only note that I read of this debate through Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and you can find links at Ed’s current post, Clarifying the Moran Debate.

    Since I’m called a theistic evolutionist, though it is a term to which I have previously objected, I thought I’d make a few comments on how God and scripture impact the way I look at science. I can’t say “the way I do science, because my field is Biblical studies, and not one of the natural sciences.

    My answer to the question could be either “lots, in every way” (to paraphrase Paul in Romans 3:2), or “not at all.”

    (more…)

  • Making Miracles Possible

    Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars in which Ed Brayton responds to some of the scientific claims, I found this post.

    Now I’m not particularly interested in the specific scientific claim, and whether it makes the virgin birth more “possible” somehow.  What interests me here is the tendency to try to find natural explanations for miracle claims.  DaveScot says:

    I have a problem with these people in that they arbitrarily limit what science can potentially explain. The so called supernatural remains supernatural only as long as there’s no metric by which to measure it. Once a metric is discovered the supernatural becomes the natural.

    Paul quotes someone on the virgin birth of Christ saying that it defies everything
    science has revealed in regard to mammalian reproduction. This is utter dreck.

    My response, however, is disbelief.  First, explaining that some part of the reproductive process might be compatible with the human reproductive process seems to me to accomplish precisely nothing.  Is it DaveScot’s intention to claim that the virgin birth is a purely natural event?  But second how is it that he expects to come up with a metric to measure the supernatural?

    Bluntly, this illustrates even more why much of what is claimed for intelligent design (ID) is simply horrifying theology.  First, the virgin birth in which I express belief each Sunday in the apostle’s creed is not a natural event.  I don’t care how easy or hard it might be made to appear, it’s not natural.  The key point of having it in the creed in the first place is that it is an ultimate example of God stepping into history.  It’s different from those natural occurences, such as gravity or my own birth that occur due to natural law, or what I would better express as the consistent will of God.

    What DaveScot appears to be proposing here is that one eliminate the supernatural through learning to measure and presumably explain it.  But that goes quite contrary to the primary intelligent design claim of either irreducible complexity or specified complexity, which requires something other than a natural process to explain.  Now I must ask which ID theorists want.  Do they want to stop looking for a natural explanation, or would they prefer to explain everything naturally.  If the latter, in what way are they not more anti-God than their opponents.  (Personally I don’t think DaveScot’s claims here would hold general acceptance amongst ID proponents, but I could be wrong.)

    On my second point, however, I affirm God the creator in the same creed with the virgin birth, by which I do not mean a God of either disappears or becomes natural as we find a way to measure him.

    I have always had little sympathy for the tendency to try to explain miracles.  Either one believes God can intervene or one doesn’t.  If one does believe God can intervene, no natural explanation is necessary.  There could, of course, be alleged miracles which are merely fortuitous natural events.  But that is not the claim of believers.  The claim of believers is that God did, in fact, intervene in the case of the miracle.  For the virgin birth, the bigger claim than the physical event is that Jesus the human being was/became God incarnate and lived on earth as a human being.  No amount of explanation of the human birth processes can explain that.

    My personal belief is that while God created a universe that will successfully run without intervention, God does interven to communicate.  But I need no physical explanations of the possibility of such intervention.  If I had such, that would simply become another natural part of the universe.

    Again, I believe I’m confronted with the mysteriously shrinking god of ID.  It just doesn’t make it theologically.

    powered by performancing firefox

  • More on Evolution Conflict

    Ed Brayton has again weighed in on the framing of the conflict over science education. I agree with the way in which Ed has laid out the issues, and strongly recommend reading his piece.

    As an advocate of sound science education, I would like to repeat some things I’ve said before, but that are often forgotten in discussion.

    I am not opposed to free speech for intelligent design advocates. In fact, I see them exercising free speech all the time. What I would suggest they do about the peer reviewed publication is to simply establish one or more publications with peer review and publish scientific research in those publications. If it is done well, scientists will begin to read and respond to the new evidence they present. Of course I think the reason they are not generally published in peer-reviewed journals is because they are not doing research that is worthy of such publication.

    Further, I have no problem with ID being discussed at the college or university level to whatever extent the people who are teaching there want to discuss it. I went to college at a place where young earth creationism was a regular topic. Nobody is actually being repressed here, no matter how loud the whining becomes.

    But more important than my perception of repression or its absence–after all, I could be totally wrong–is the simple fact that there are other avenues open. In this age of the internet and various easy print publication opportunities, it’s quite easy to get something into print. But the real complaint is not getting published or not, it’s where one is published, or how much respect one gets from scienfic colleagues.

    That respect from scientific colleagues, however, has to be earned. And earning it is hard work. New ideas do work their way into the scientific community only slowly, and most new ideas get thrown out in the process of discussion. That is appropriate. One can argue that there should be more room or less room for new ideas, but ultimately, science must test ideas thoroughly before they are accepted.

    And that leads me to the place where I do not think that ID has a place–the high school science classroom. Why? Very simply I believe that the high school curriculum is packed enough with consensus science, and that it should be limited to that. Let new ideas be discussed elsewhere and when a scientific consensus arises, that will be time enough to add that material to the high school science curriculum.

    Framing the debate a s religion vs science, however, makes this difficult, no matter which side frames the discussion in that fashion.

    (Note: Read Ed’s piece before you comment here. I’m only making a small subpoint.)