Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • Barbarians? What Barbarians?

    Mark Olson responded to my post Why the Creation-Evolution Controvery is Important with a post of his own, Barbarians at the Gate. It appears that was his gentle way of telling me that I’m a bit over the top, at least about my comment on the assault on the integrity of science. Kudos to Mark for method! I don’t see any barbarians, or at least I see only barbarians acting in a very civilized way, but I do see some danger.

    I would first like to point out that I said what I said in the context of the case of Dr. Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University (start with Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited). I didn’t specify that in my own post, because I was responding to some of the responses I received to my posting on that issue. Where precisely is this “assault on integrity” going on? I believe it is happening in Christian churches.

    I’m not, however, talking about the dearth of Biblical knowledge, though I do think that is a problem. I’m talking about the way in which some Christians try to pressure other Christians into accepting a war between religion an science–a war which is quite unnecessary. The most guilty parties are advocates of young earth creationism, but old earth creationists join in when the target is theistic evolutionists, and the ID crowd joins right in.

    I’ve already expressed by view on this a few times before and particularly in more recent discussions of the situation at Olivet Nazarene University. But I lived this in my own life. There was certainly no effort to “teach the controversy” in my Seventh-day Adventist education. The entire effort was to indoctrinate me as a young earth creationist. I had very little idea what evolutionary theory actually was even after I received my graduate degree.

    But there is something faintly amusing to me about getting painting as one proclaiming there are barbarians at the gates. The ID movement is one of the noisiest “suppressed” movements out there. They are truly claiming that the barbarians are at the gates–in this case “Darwinist” barbarians. But is that cry justified?

    I think it is not. First, of course, they seem to have an abundance of ways in which to make themselves heard. Second, they are not taking the appropriate road to scientific recognition, which is the production of science.

    There are two ways to obscure truth. On the one can attempt to suppress those who speak it. But on the other hand we can present so many untested things as truth that it’s hard to determine what is valid and what is not. In order to prevent the second of these, we have peer-reviewed journals and we have results that can be replicated by other scientists. Those are the proper gateways through which thing should pass to become part of the general body of science.

    As a counter to that restriction we have free flow of information generally. The ID advocates who feel that they are being suppressed can write and publish books, they can write blogs, and everyone who wants can read. They can assault the gates of science all they want. That is freedom of speech. But it is essentially also freedom of speech for those scientists who peer-review the literature and who try to replicate results to say, “No, this doesn’t meet the standard.” The rest of us get to decide who we will believe.

    Someone is bound to ask then why I don’t think Olivet Nazarene University is within their rights to suppress Dr. Richard Colling? Of course they are within their rights. They are a privately funded university, and they can set their own standards. They might fall afoul of accreditation committees, but that has not proven too much of a problem for many, many schools who would not allow the teaching of evolution as valid.

    But this is the church. You see, I care more about the church than I do about the rest of the world. I’m a Bible teacher. That’s where I live and work. It’s important to me. When I see there’s a problem with integrity in the world, I am concerned. When I see it in the church, that’s striking close to home.

    People who have gone to secular universities rarely understand my point on this. They feel that they spent their lives fighting for recognition, and that any religious ideas are suppressed in that atmosphere. Personally I suspect them of being a bit over the top, but I can’t be sure. You see, I never spent a day in a public school classroom. I’m part home schooled, part private schooled, and all Christian schooled.

    I would like Christian education to be ahead of everyone else, and to represent the very best that there is to offer. I’d like to see better training in all fields, but especially in science. If there is any place where Christians should demonstrate a sound education, rather than a thorough indoctrination it is in our church educational systems, from Sunday School to church sponsored universities.

    To do that we need to model free inquiry. Exploration not indoctrination.

  • Rejecting ID, but is it a priori?

    On a previous post Ray commented:

    A religion or naturalism arrived at as a result of following the evidence where it leads, is quite acceptable, and even to be expected in most cases for it is a conclusion arrive at after an objective analysis of the evidence. It is therefore a reasonable conclusion.
    Naturalism or a belief in ID, arrived at as a conclusion read into the evaluation of the evidence by, amongst other things, the exclusion of other potential conclusions on an ” apriori ” basis is quite another.

    To either assume or exclude a Designer on an “apriori” basis, seems to me, to be fatal to an objective analysis of the question.
    Nevertheless, I see that I will only be repeating myself and irritating the rest of you( not my intention). I’ve said my piece and I wish to thank all of you for your time.
    God bless.

    I don’t mind this topic at all, and as I commented in response, I don’t believe my rejection of ID is a priori (with a specific exception noted below). I immediately need to clarify that I do not reject a designer as such, but rather intelligent design as a scientific concept. From a theological point of view, I hold that the universe is designed and that God is the designer. I simply believe that the design is consistent and that it does not show “wrinkles” in the natural universe. I (intelligent design) and its claim that the designer can be detected scientifically at particular points in nature.

    The problem seems fairly simple to me. One could say that science deals with two categories of processes or entities, which I will loosely call “things.” There are things that scientists do understand and things they don’t. Good scientists would like to improve their understanding of things they already understand and learn to understand those they don’t.

    ID proposes to divide the things that we don’t understand into two categories–those we can theoretically hope to understand and those that must be attributed to a designer. Now as a scientific layman, I am mystified as to what benefit is to be derived from this new division. All it does is attempt to put a stop sign in front of certain processes for which it is assumed we will never find answers in the natural world.

    And it is an assumption. Everything we understand about the natural world was once not understood, and in many, many cases there were people who assumed it could never be known. One of my frustrations in reading Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box was in the number of discoveries that Behe relates, and even does such a fine job of explaining. Yet he uses this progress of knowledge to support the claim that there’s a roadblock in the way now. Saying we can’t know something we don’t know is silly–after all, we don’t know.

    Let me also dismiss the notion of a non-supernatural intelligent designer. There are two reasons. First, if the intelligent designer is itself natural, then it will simply require explanation as well. How did it come into existence? Second, if we are looking for a natural designer, it makes sense to try to discover the nature of that designer in order to be able to guess capabilities, limitations, intentions, and so forth. One piece of evidence that ID is not scientific is simply that its proponents show no curiosity about the nature of the designer. This very lack of curiosity indicates that they do know who they are proposing–God. But in the United States they need something that will pass church-state muster.

    So now if we are looking for a supernatural designer, what exactly happens? First, we must assume that this designer is one who intervenes in the natural world and who does so in a detectable way. There is no reason that the designer must be detectable. The best design of a universe might well run its course (assuming it has one) without any intervention at all. Intervention need not be detectable. Supposing that some element of nature was made to appear completely random. With any care, our hypothetical supernatural designer could altar the random input in such a way as to be undetectable.

    Second, if we assume that the designer is supernatural, it automatically operates outside the natural laws. Should a scientist come upon one of these unexplained processes, and attribute it to the designer, then he steps beyond something he can investigate using the methods of natural science. Here is where I could properly be accused of arguing something a priori. I think that by design and definition, scientific methods are not suited to studying the supernatural. If it is truly supernatural, then you cannot limit it by natural laws, thus it can do anything, and can be fitted anywhere. But that does not exclude a designer a priori, merely the detection of the designer by the methods of natural science.

    If we have an intervening designer, what we will find is that there will be a number of points in nature that are not explained. We won’t know whether they could be explained naturally or not. Every system which has a Darwinian explanation for its development was once a system for which there was no such explanation. ID has not added anything whatsoever to our knowledge. Without a designer we have some things that are explained and some that aren’t. With a designer–same thing!

    ID does have a massive disadvantage, however, in that once you claim something cannot theoretically be explained, you reduce or remove the motivation for studying it and learning what can be learned. And considering that there are things once declared irreducibly complex that have since been “reduced” so to speak, that roadblock in the path of knowledge is not a good idea.

  • Evangelicals and Evolution

    One response I get to my teaching and writing on creation and evolution goes something like this: “You’re just a liberal who’s trying to do away with the Bible, so it’s natural that you go along with the secularist society around you on evolution as well.” But that isn’t the case. For example my company (Energion Publications) publishes Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. who would best be described as an Old Earth Creationist. You can imagine that as I edited his books for publication, not to mention in our personal friendship and dialog that has gone on for a number of years longer, we have engaged in a few debates on this. But the fact that by almost any measure you choose, Elgin is more conservative than I am, in the area of creation and evolution, there is no difference in the way we would handle the Biblical materials.

    That’s my long way around to get at the point that creation vs evolution need not be a conservative/liberal issue in Christianity. I may be a liberal (though I prefer “passionate moderate”) but you can’t determine that by my stance on evolution.

    Steve Martin, an evangelical Christian, has a blog titled An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. He left a comment on my previous post linking to a post on his blog Evangelicalism and Evolution: Why the Discussion Matters. I agree with the additional points that he makes there, and would like to call this to everyone’s attention.

    I had an experience with my pamphlet God the Creator that supports his point. A college student told me that he was talking to a fellow-student who was interested in Christianity, but whose scientific training convinced him that evolutionary theory was the best explanation for the diversification of life on earth. The Christians he talked to were telling him that he had to give up that belief in order to be a Christian. This young man had attended my seminar “God, Dinosaurs, and You” (I’m not responsible for that title), and told him otherwise. At the time he shared this with me, several more people were attending church simply because that barrier to faith had been removed.

    I would add also that as I believe the primary Christian witness is the individual Christian (and Christian congregation or community) through whom Christ is shown to others, a lack of individual integrity is critical to the gospel.

    OK, enough rambling. I’ve gotten in my commercial plugs. I don’t do that much all that often on this blog. Really! I’ll be adding Steve’s blog to the blogroll.

  • Why the Creation-Evolution Controversy is Important

    I’m going to try for a brief statement, something that seems to be an unnatural act for me!

    I am sometimes asked why I spend so much of my time on the [tag]creation[/tag]/[tag]evolution[/tag] controversy. The reason is simply that there is a full scale assault going on against free inquiry, something that is essential to the integrity and continued progress of science. As we have seen in the case of Dr. [tag]Richard Colling[/tag], scientists are asked to give up or lie about what they know to be the truth in order to meet a theological conclusion.

    Creation and evolution is simply the most obvious case at the present time. Not only is the pressure intense in church circles, so that many people prefer not to discuss the issue rather than deal with the controversy, it is also a factor in political circles as creationists seek government recognition for ideas which have failed in the scientific arena.

    There is simply no excuse in my view for what amounts to a demand to lie. This overlaps into my field of Biblical studies. Shortly after I completed my MA degree, I was interviewed by a college for a possible teaching position. I had some disagreements with the dominant theology and I recall listing these off for one person, saying I was flattered to be considered, given my degree level and lack of experience, but that I would have problems in those areas. The answer? “You don’t have to teach everything you know.” That would not be an option I could live with.

    In science the case is very clear. You go with what the evidence says, and to be evidence it must be something that can be seen by people of any religious persuasion, or of no religion at all. That’s a theologian’s way of putting it, but I think it does make the point.

    I’m not interested in theistic or non-[tag]theistic science[/tag]. I’m interested in science. My personal faith requires integrity of me, and nothing less meets that standard.

  • Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited

    I have suggested many times before that before one believes what IDC (intelligent design creationism) advocates say about their goals, one should look at the way they handle the matter where they are in control. I’m sure that I will be accused of unfairly lumping ID and creationism together, but if they don’t want that to happen they should make efforts not to look so similar.

    While names have changed, and a slogan like “teach the controversy” has become popular only more recently, I can recall the same theme from my own childhood to the present. Evolutionists need to allow the teaching of creationism along side evolution. It’s only fair. At the same time, evolution was never given a fair presentation on the church side. I never heard in Sabbath School (I was raised Seventh-day Adventist) that there were such people as theistic evolutionists, nor did I learn anything about how they would view God as creator. It was always a war between light (creationism) and darkness (evolutionism), the first God’s own truth, and the second the devil’s deception designed to lead one to hell.

    Today I found this column from the forthcoming Newsweek, that tells about Richard Colling, who has written a book Random Designer. Now I haven’t read his book, though I will certainly set out to get a copy now. By the description it sounds very much like he and I would be on the same page philosophically and theologically. He’s a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University, where his book is now effectively banned. He doesn’t get to teach a basic biology course he has taught for years, and his book can’t be assigned reading.

    This action shows some of the destructive potential of ignorance, but it also removes any fig-leaf of respectability from the “teach the controversy” argument. The advocates of creationism generally do not want the controversy taught. They want to win. If they were to win a court case allowing their materials into the public school classrooms, their next move would be to prevent critical examination of those ideas, and then to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory itself. I simply don’t believe the public propaganda. I never have, but the evidence that it is pure propaganda just keeps building up.

    And here I would note that while I oppose inclusion of intelligent design or any other variety of creationism in high school science classes until such time as it becomes mainstream science (don’t hold your breath), I’m perfectly happy to have any theory discussed in higher education. It should be critically discussed, which, in the case of IDC, would mean that it should be thoroughly shredded.

    But at Olivet, apparently, they don’t even want students to have to read about the views of a theistic evolutionist. I believe that the Olivet example is what theistic evolutionists such as myself can expect from the ID movement. They want to shut us out. They certainly don’t want to “teach the controversy” about ID, a controversy that is very much alive amongst Christians.

    You see, “teaching the controversy” is good when you want to wedge your way into the public schools, or force your way into universities. It’s not so good when someone wants to fairly examine the controversy inside a Christian school. They want a “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.

    Hat tips go to Metacatholic and Higgaion, both of whom have excellent comments on this story themselves.

  • Great ID Cartoon

    It’s at Faith and Theology, with hat tip to Metacatholic. Enjoy!

    Also, I’ve added Metacatholic to my blogroll, and my RSS subscriptions. I’ll probably be linking there more in the weeks to come.

  • Teach the Controversy about Geocentrism

    In my previous post The Danger of Teaching the Controversy, I suggested that one of the problems with teaching the controversy was just which controversies one should teach. There are always plenty of crackpot theories floating around not to mention sound attempts to modify existing theories. These need to be tested by scientists using scientific methods with accountability through peer review.

    In discussing this, I said the following:

    More importantly, however, let’s consider how this “teach the controversy” principle would work in public schools. Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? I know some people are just about to explode on that one. “Nobody believes that any more, or at least only a few kooks.” Well, that may be true, though I believe there’s even a kook with a PhD who tries to teach geocentrism. But this does illustrate the problem. We argue for teaching the controversy on creation and evolution or on intelligent design and evolution, but we are unwilling to invoke the same phrase for all controversial issues.

    And to prove my point, one Mark Wyatt posted this comment:

    “…Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? …”

    Yes.

    And Here are the recommended text books.

    Mark

    Well, well, well. Though I will often debate with people who probably should be ignored, even I will not bother debating geocentrism. But I think my point is made. Theories need to be tested scientifically before becoming part of the curriculum. No exceptions should be made, even for especially controversial ones, or we will dilute education. There really isn’t any idea so stupid that it can’t find advocates somewhere!

    For those who believe someone is being suppressed here, note that even a person so far out there as to advocate geocentrism has two books published and a web site. It’s getting very difficult to suppress ideas. The problem that creationists and others have is that it is also getting extremely difficult to blunt criticisms of dumb ideas.

  • How Not to Respond to Bad Reviews

    As a writer and public speaker, albeit on a small scale, I found this story on the Panda’s Thumb amusing. Apparently Dr. Stuart Pivar, who appears to have no particular qualifications in the field, has written a book about giving “structuralist/developmental interpretation of evolution.”

    As authors will do from time to time, Pivar then sent a review copy to PZ Myers, whose review was anything but positive. Pivar sent him a revised copy, which resulted in another unfavorable review, to put it mildly. Now, my fellow authors, what do you do when you get an unfavorable review? You learn what you can from it, and if it’s truly malicious and not at all constructive, you suck it in and go on. When you present ideas to the public, you live with the possibility–no, the near certainty–that someone isn’t going to like them.

    In the case of LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization, the author shows no qualifications for writing the book, and the reviewer is extremely well qualified, thus suggesting who should be heard and who no. Besides, $60.00 for a 164 page book is just a bit out of range. Specialty books written for a scholarly audience sometimes are priced in that range, but that doesn’t apply here.

    Finally, any author who sues a reviewer should assume that any positive review he ever gets can be discounted. He has tried to apply intimidation, and cannot be relied upon.

  • Random Mutations and God

    JuliaL, in a comment to my previous post, Don McLeroy and his Big Creationist Tent . I’m going to copy the comment here and reply, because I think it brings up an important point that deserves a post of its own.

    Here’s the part that mystifies me:


    Consider natural selection of random mutations. If they’re random mutations, they can’t be God-directed, and if they’re naturally selected, you can’t hav, quote, “God-selecteds.”

    Is the claim being made that there is no such thing as a mathematically random process, such as the choosing of the winning number in a lottery? Or, is McLeroy saying that a process can indeed be mathematically random, but in some magical fashion then God is incapable of being any part of it? So God is completely excluded from lotteries? And if we want to cut God out of any issue, we need only introduce randomness (like “Russian roulette” with a gun before pulling the trigger), and God is forced to stand by helpless? I’ve seen people pick a Bible verse to read by closing their eyes, letting the Bible fall open, and then putting their finger to the page to pick a random verse to mediatate on. Does this process mean that God is now excluded from the event and must stand around looking incompetent?

    As for natural selection, is the claim here that anything selected for/against by nature thereby excludes God from any role? Nature pretty much destroys certain kinds of plants I attempt to put in my yard; the heat, humidity, and alternate drought and flood kills them off. Does installing such plants mean that I have managed to ban God from my yard?

    This seems a strange view of God, not as the ground of all being or as the wholeness of which everything else is a part, but as a separate, discrete individual who can be pushed aside through math and nature processes that we all normally acknowledge exist.

    The thing that has mystified me for a long time is that so many people seem to view a natural process as something which separates something from design by God. From my theological point of view, the universe exists because God wills it so, therefore everything is designed. Supposing I create a machine that automatically produces some other device. Would that secondary device not be considered my design? God goes one better, and designs and elegant and simple algorithm that produces huge variety. It’s still God.

    Intelligent design creationists (IDC) are not satisfied to have God ordain laws and processes. They want God to intervene along the way, and see indications of that design. The Holy Grail of this idea is that one process or system that simply cannot have been produced by the simple combination of variation + natural selection. They keep claiming to have found it, but as knowledge of the evolutionary process advances, ways are discovered. IDC requires a severe deficit in imagination.

    The requirement for detectable intervention ties intelligent design to creationism. If that were not the case, they could embrace people like me who believe in God and believe that the universe itself exists by the will of God. That means everything we see is designed at some level or another. I’m not a metaphysical naturalist. But IDCs do not embrace people like me. Why? Because the simple statement that the universe is designed is not their real goal.

    Their goal is to prove elements of the Biblical story of creation, specifically that there are “kinds” that cannot produce one another, boundary lines that can only be crossed by special divine intervention. That’s the point of trying to find detectable footprints. It’s not design/non-design so much as it is the detectability of design, and even more specifically the detectability of limits that require divine intervention at particular points.

    On this young and old earth creationists can agree, because their understanding of the Genesis story, while not the same, agrees in hearing it as narrative history. They just disagree in the level of symbol involved. They both need divine intervention in a way that should be detectable. (There’s some discussion of this right now because IDCs want to deny part of their roots. This has been discussed recently by Nick Matzke, Ed Brayton, and from the IDC side by Rob Crowther.

    Now to the word “random.” That is largely a scare word, since evolution is not, in fact, a random process. Natural selection is quite directed. There are a number of definitions of the word random, but in this case non-mathematicians are generally thinking something like “lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern” (Merriam-Webster). Though this is not the mathematical definition, it will work for our purposes.

    In A Wonderful Life Gould suggested a thought experiment rolling back the movie of the history of life on earth from the time of the Cambrian explosion onward, and suggested that it might unroll in different ways because random events might occur differently. But there is a view of determinism that would say that everything that occurs is totally caused by previous events, thus if we had sufficient knowledge we could tie every event right back to be big band, down to movements of subatomic particles. With this level of determinism, someone with my view of evolution could claim that God did design not just human beings as such, but me in particular, by the way he “set off the big bang.” Everything would be determined by the arrangement of particles (and whatever) at the moment “cause” came to have any meaning. Thus intelligent design without that identifiable time of intervention.

    (For those who want to think more about this, let me link to two series by Peter Kirk at Speaker of Truth. I’m not specifically endorsing everything Peter says, and I gather that he isn’t either, but that’s not because I disagree with any substantial portion. I simply don’t understand the physics well enough for my agreement to make any difference. The important thing is that he is here working with concepts from physics, and relating them to theology and origins, and deals some with the issue of causation. The posts are Kingdom Dynamics Introduction, Beyond Causality, The Boundaries, and The Crunch, followed by The Beginning part 1 and part 2.)

    IDCs would like that, however, because it wouldn’t give them their “kinds” with boundaries between them. In the view of some of them, front-loading would come with the creation of the first life, which should have DNA capable of producing everything that happened later.

    But there is no necessity that absolute determinism is true. It’s just a possibility. There could be events that are not caused in our sense of the word at all. For example, we have no way to speak sensibly of the “cause” of the big bang. I have had people I regard as reliable tell me that quantum physics shows that the universe is truly deterministic, and others I regard as equally reliable tell me it proves that there is true randomness. I don’t understand their arguments so I cannot comment on who is right. But it’s interesting that it appears to be a debatable issue!

    Some other theists who are scientists, especially physicists, see the subatomic realm as a place where God could intervene, for example, to cause mutations at the appropriate moment, without us being able to detect that intervention at all. Again, this wouldn’t make IDCs happy, because they want to find God, and also, for the most part, to prove that he created the world in a way that can be related to Genesis. Don’t ever be deceived by the rhetoric–Genesis will show up sooner or later.

    I don’t really understand the how of it at all. I would be satisfied if God simply created the process, and the process produces everything else. I think variation + natural selection is a very powerful process. At the moment I don’t see any example of demonstrated intervention. I would simply say that as a theist I hold that even if the process is random in its input (variation) it is random because that is the way God ordains it to be. That is not a scientific conclusion, however. Science must simply observe whether it is random or not and report.

    Finally, I do believe that the IDCs come up with a bizarre idea of God, a God who is more active at some points than others, and one who designed a process to diversify life, but it didn’t work right, so he has to tinker. Somehow they think this is a positive think and work very hard to prove that it happened, at the same time proving, in my view, that God is incompetent. That’s not a conclusion I’d prefer to come to!

  • Don McLeroy and his Big Creationist Tent

    I’ve written a great deal recently (here, here, and here) about the use of the term “worldview” to attempt to create a level playing field, particularly for young earth creationism. I don’t have a problem with the term “worldview” in a strictly limited sense. If we exclude particular possibilities a priori, and refuse to reexamine those assumptions, we can be locked into a worldview.

    One of my major problems with common use of the term “worldview” is that it tends to be used in a binary fashion. I don’t mean that there are only two worldviews, seen as mutually exclusive, but rather that each worldview is seen as totally exclusive of all others.

    Don McLeroy, newly named head of the Texas Board of Education (Hat Tip: NCSE, the Texas Freedom Network, and The Panda’s Thumb) gave a speech in 2005 that illulstrates some of my points very well, even better than I stated them. In a somewhat incoherent and disjointed speech, he managed to lay the boundaries of intelligent design creationism (IDC), to justify the inclusion of “creationism” in that label, to employ the scriptures extensively in support of his position, and to claim that it was all scientific.

    As a theistic evolutionist, I found his discussion interesting, and it affirms the most negative comments I have made about the intelligent design movement. There have been intelligent design advocates who have tried to include me in their camp, saying that theistic evolution is really a form of intelligent design. I disagree; so does McLeroy, thought it seems for different reasons.

    I want to focus just on McLeroy’s definition of the “big tent” of IDC, and just what it is he says they are in opposition to. Look at the following quotes from the speech:

    . . . And one other thing about these lessons, big tent, and this is, uh, in the big tent of evolution we all have disagreements, but we’re united in one thing, and we’re united in what we oppose. And you’ll see this later. This is the power of the deductive argument, but nature is all there is. We’re united against the fact that that’s a true statement.

    . . . and . . .

    . . . Actually, in intelligent design we are focused on a on a bigger target, and in the words of Phillip Johnson “the target is metaphysical naturalism, materialism or just plain old naturalism. The idea that nature is all there is.” Modern science today is totally based on naturalism, and all of intelligent design’s arguments against evolution and chemical origin of life it is the naturalistic base that is the target. . . .

    . . . and . . .

    Now I would like to talk a little bit about the big tent. Why is intelligent design the big tent? It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design. And intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church actually is a smaller, uh, tent than you would have in the intelligent design movement as a whole. Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant, and it’s good to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. So because it’s a bigger tent, just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues. And that’s one thing that I really enjoyed about our group is that we’ve put that all in the big tent, we’re all working together.

    So what we have here is a big tend of IDC that includes just about everyone out there. Young earth creationists, old earth creationists, more general ID proponents, and one guesses even those who hold the gap theory. Thus on one side of the debate we are supposed to see people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and those who believe it is 4.5 billion years old. We are to combine people who believe there was a global flood and those who believe it was just a very large localized event. Within that range we have giant differences between the evidence required for each option.

    This is not the picture of a scientific movement. It is the picture of a political movement, involving a temporary religious alliance. I would warn the old earth creationists to beware. Should this “big tent” ever succeed in its goals, the young earth creationists who now accept IDC (and many of them do not) will be after you guys in a minute.

    But what is the goal of this diverse group? The defeat of naturalism, what else? Now notice that if naturalism is defeated, there will be some form of supernaturalism to take its place. In a philosophical sense, I’m fine with that. I’m a supernaturalist myself, on which more later. But let’s continue:

    So what is naturalism? It’s the idea that nature is all there is. . . .

    So now McLeroy makes it explicit. In his big tent belongs everyone who is opposed to naturalism, and he defines naturalism as the belief that nature is all there is. Now forgive me for being dense, but as a theist, I would think that I qualify as someone who does not believe that nature is all there is. In fact, every so often one of my atheist friends reminds me of that “weakness” in my thinking.

    So perhaps the main thing that keeps me out of McLeroy’s big tent is the fact that I have a hard time seeing how young earth creationists and old earth creationists belong in the same tent. From the scientific point of view, they don’t. At a minimum, one must recognize that different arguments are required against each one.

    But I would be wrong to think that’s the problem. Now let’s look at what is not included in the “big tent.”

    I’d like to make a quick comment about the option of theistic evolution, and it’s a very poor option. There’s not anybody in our group that’s advocating this. Because Darwinism doesn’t allow God to do anything. Consider natural selection of random mutations. If they’re random mutations, they can’t be God-directed, and if they’re naturally selected, you can’t hav, quote, “God-selecteds.” And so no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it. So, you know, there are some in the Christian camp that just say, “Well, I am a theistic evolutionist.” And there are some bright minds that are that way, but they aren’t part really of the intelligent design group. It just doesn’t fit.

    I hope you read that paragraph carefully. The problem is not whether God exists or not, or whether there is something other than nature–no matter how much someone tries to tell you other wise. The issue is about detecting and measuring God’s presence scientifically. If I say that the world exists because God brought the universe into existence, and that life appeared in accordance with God’s natural laws and then further diversified in accordance with those laws, I am not welcome in this big tent.

    The reason cannot be that I’m a naturalist. I just said God (something other than nature) is the cause of all of this. The reason is that I don’t believe that God’s fingerprints can be found where he tinkered with the processes. Unfortunately for my welcome into McLeroy’s big tent, I believe that the process God created to produce life and diversify it actually works, and doesn’t require periodic adjustments.

    This issue is not naturalism or not. The issue is whether the scientific method is to be called upon to measure the supernatural. I don’t think that will ever work. In fact, I would be unsurprised if in the scientific sense we ever found the point at which we say “God did it” because I believe that “God did it” in such a comprehensive and consistent way that we’re never going to find the seams or the fingerprints.

    One can wonder why I’m a theist, in that case, a point which I’ve discussed elsewhere, but in terms of science, “God did it” is never an answer, and should never be used as a stop sign for scientific effort.

    That’s why I totally agree with McLeroy that I belong outside his big tent, but I do so by disagreeing with the common element. It is not that they are supernaturalists. It is that they believe God must have left fingerprints on nature. They can’t agree on just what he left and where, but they’re willing to get together to push the rest of us out of the way.

    To me engaging naturalism does bring religion into the equation, though I think by bringing in scientific method some of the points – I hadn’t thought about that, so I really gotten a lot out of this discussion. That you can do it without bringing religion into it, so I think you can go both ways. . . .

    And this is simply ridiculous. Of course the intention is religious. The intent is to make sure that we get God into the equation. All this stuff about unidentified intelligent designers is a smokescreen, though the smoke is so transparent that everyone other than those generating the smoke are seeing through it. It is only the IDC folks who think that they have covered something up when they refer to an undetermined intelligent designer. The rest of us know who they’re talking about.

    McLeroy invokes the matrix in accusing evolutionary scientists of being hopelessly deceived by their worldview. But there is nothing about a methodological naturalism that prevents one from seeing any sort of evidence. I would suggest that the filter is much in evidence inside the big tent. It’s a filter that removes the abundant evidence of common descent. It also prevents people from seeing new evidence found regularly that advances our knowledge of evolutionary processes.

    I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, for someone to find God’s fingerprints showing his tinkering. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but I’m open to such evidence. Thus far, none has been forthcoming.