Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Intelligent Design

  • A Short Note on Theistic Evolution and Frontloading

    I know, none of you readers believe I am capable of being brief, but I’m going to try! This post was triggered by my reading of Richard B. Hoppe’s post Dissent Out of Bounds on Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that “Descent”), which is largely about Uncommon Descent’s comment censorship (because of which I do not comment there and I ceased tracking back to them), but the comments in question bring up some excellent points.

    One key is a definition of design. There’s some good discussion of that in the comments. But the issue I want to address is the matter of design and theistic evolution. It seems that when certain intelligent design (ID) proponents wish to make their movement seem larger, they include theistic evolutionists, on the grounds that if we believe the universe is designed, we do, in fact, believe in intelligent design. One assumes, of course, that we don’t believe in unintelligent design! When we’re to be excluded because we don’t believe in the right type and time of design, then we’re asked to produce a place, time, and proof of design, which in general we don’t think possible.

    (more…)

  • Evolution Sunday

    Evolution Sunday is coming up February 11, 2007. Some folks may be a bit concerned, or even seriously annoyed with the idea of an “evolution” Sunday. Is the theory of evolution going to become a point of Christian doctrine? Shall we celebrate evolution for a day?

    Well, I can think of several subjects right off hand that would make good sermons that relate the theory of evolution to relevant topics in Christianity, and I would have no problem with preaching them, should I have the opportunity. (My venue is more commonly the classroom, but who knows?) But the real point of Evolution Sunday is to discuss the relationship between religion and science. Evolution seems to be the topic most commonly used to drive a wedge between the two, and the event is scheduled as near as possible to Charles Darwin’s birthday because he is made the focus of the controversy.

    I have no greater desire to see evolution become an element of a Christian doctrine of creation than I do to see young earth creationism in that position. I would like Christianity to deal doctrinally with the doctrine of God and his relationship to his creation, and to leave the how to those who employ the scientific method. Getting those physical facts and coordinating them is what science does well. It is also something that religion generally does poorly.

    So what I would suggest to churches is that they focus on the topic of science and religion, with an emphasis on living respectfully together as Christians in spite of our disagreements on the details of how God created. Let the congregation know that we can live together even when we disagree on matters of science. Believe it or not, young earthers, old earthers, ID advocates, and evolutionists can and do exist in the same congregation without immediate war breaking out.

    This respect doesn’t mean that we have to give ground in debate or discussion. A vigorous exchange of ideas is important in seeking the truth. Too often respect is equated to agreement or even to the idea that what we believe doesn’t matter at all. What I would hope for is that members of Christian congregations could debate these issues without fear of being thrown out of the church or cut off from positions of authority.

    So on February 11, 2007, consider talking about science and religion working together, about how we can both disagree and communicate our disagreement, and how we can place our focus on the essentials.

    (For some ideas on the doctrine of creation, see the Energion Publications tract God the Creator.)

  • Heat, Light, and Comments

    This morning I awoke to start my early morning blog and e-mail work only to find that co.mments.com had supplied me (at my request) with seven messages alerting me to comments on Ed Brayton’s most recent blog entry on the Richard Dawkins petition debate, representing 27 comments. I only worked my way through a few of the comments which seem quite repetitive.

    What struck me initially was simply that it seems like the least central of issues easily get the largest number of comments. My largest blocks of comments generally don’t come on the posts in which I feel that I’ve made a thoughtful contribution, but on those posts in which I got emotional on reading a news story or someone else’s blog entry and batted out a few paragraphs worth of annoyance.

    It’s worth considering why that is. I think my own commenting often reflects a similar trend. When I read a good, thoughtful post, I go think about it and often by the time I have anything to say, I’ve even forgotten where I read it. That’s one of the reasons I signed up for co.mments.com in the first place.

    Now I’ve already commented on this issue as such. I wrote about how I think that indoctrination, as I understand the term, is not a good thing. As a Christian, I don’t want people indoctrinated into my faith. I want them to learn about and choose it. That choice is up to them, not to me. I think the petition Richard Dawkins signed was not a good idea, and I’m glad he’s repudiated that signature. In fact, he has risen in my estimation by his response. I have realized from my first exposure to his work (reading The Blind Watchmaker [link is to my review]) that he and I are not going to see eye to eye on many things, and that he has some contempt for my liberal Christian perspective (or moderate perhaps). At the same time his writing on science is truly exceptional and challenging, and I must continue to recommend reading it. Further, I think my fellow Christians should climb down off the ceiling, especially hear in the United States. I’d be much more concerned about the religious right getting power than the “atheist left.” There is, in fact, so little “atheist left” out there, that your expectation should not be that atheism is going to take over. Probably you should be more worried about me. 🙂 The woods are full of us moderate and liberal Christians, and we’re beginning to get really annoyed at what the hard right is doing to our faith. (Note that I use “moderate” as a very broad term that actually includes most evangelicals.)

    As I was thinking up all these exciting things to say, I saw in my feeds Nick Matzke’s post Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position. It doesn’t make me want to go beat up on Ed for his reaction. Many Christians will react even more forcefully and will not be satisfied with the explanations. After reading the petition, and based on my own experience living overseas, I still think that petition reads very badly and implies some inappropriate things. But what Richard Dawkins is saying in the quoted e-mail is very rational and forms a good basis for discussion.

    I think Christian education, specifically what goes on in churches in Sunday School classes, Wednesday night classes, and even many weekend retreats fails because it is shallow, repetitive, and intended for indoctrination. We want our children to be like us, and the programs are designed to make them like us. What we need is a next generation that knows how to consider, think critically, and decide. Now there will be some both non-Christians and Christians who will think I’m being foolish here, in both cases because they think children educated in that way won’t grow up as people of faith. I understand the possibilities, and I’m willing to risk it. In fact, risk is not the best word. An unthinking, knee-jerk Christian is just as much a loss to the faith and possibly more so than the person who leaves because of their best judgment.

    I believe that the reason Christianity has failed so many times in accomplishing its purpose is that the principle of self-sacrificing love is not something that can be produced by indoctrination, it can only be chosen. What indoctrination produces is a simulation of self-sacrificing love, thus hypocrisy, and soon after that judgmentalism. The fruit of unrestrained judgmentalism is persecution.

    Hopefully with Nick Matzke’s nifty contribution, and Richard Dawkins well-considered words (unlike the initial petition signing), we can work toward some light here coming out of a great deal of heat.

    Update: I don’t want to write another post on this subject, but I want to add a link to Ed Brayton’s excellent letter to Richard Dawkins that was posted after I wrote this.

  • 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…)

  • 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…)

  • 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