From Intelligent Design to BioLogos, Part 5: Epilogue

[Let’s try that again.]

“Of course, my training as a geneticist had been invaluable: most

evangelicals cannot read the primary scientific literature on evolution

as part of their own journey, and as such they are beholden to how other

Christians represent (or misrepresent) it.”

They can’t read the primary scientific literature and they choose not to read Scientific American or Natural History
with intelligence, they rarely visit legitimate natural history
museums, but boy, they sure can hit creationist sites and spread garbage
around. 

OK, could you list a few facts you say are incorrect?

You have made the general statement that some of us read garbage, I want to know what you think this garbage is.

“When studying the evidence for creation, I again compared that evidence against the “evolution standard” that my education taught me was factual.”

False. There has never been a single piece of verifiably accurate evidence for magical creationism over biological evolution, nor over any other avenue of actual science. There never has been and there never will be. You can’t study what doesn’t exist.


“As I have said in several posts here on BL over the last year or so, evolution and creation are religious beliefs, both require faith, faith that deep time and naturalistic processes are responsible for what we observe today, or faith that all things were created by an omnipotent, eternal God, and us in His image. We also have his word, in Genesis, which gives an account of this (if you believe Gods Word). Evolutionists like to claim evolution is science, creation is religion. Not true. Both practice operational science but when scientific findings are extrapolated to explain the unobserved past, it becomes historical science, open to opinion and interpretation.”

False again. I refer you to the words of Todd Wood, perhaps the only YEC biologist with any credibility at all, “Evolution… is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion.  It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power.”


Furthermore, the reason creationist apologetic literature (as opposed to some of the more scholarly research done by individuals such as Todd Wood) is referred to as garbage is because it is clearly misleading, and deliberately misrepresents real research. Pick out just about article on AIG, ICR, RTB, or the Discovery Institute site and see how they reference scientific research. The research cited almost never supports the conclusion that they claim that it does, and it many instances has absolutely nothing to do with topic of the article. They are relying on your not going back and reading the original research for yourself, and just accepting what they say and believing that they are even providing support for their claims. That is why we know you haven’t examined the evidence for yourself, you allow others to filter the facts for you.

Dennis, thanks. Thanks for interweaving personal religious bio with your personal science-learning bio.

I have an open (non-adversarial) question regarding your statement – “most evangelicals cannot read the primary scientific literature on evolution as part of their own journey.”

I take the ‘cannot’ literally. Cannot for lack of competence in the field. For lack of competence in the complexities in the interactions between the mathematics and the data of biology. Professional biologist have a little of this problem too, that is, reading in biology outside their narrow focus. Say like a heart surgeon may not understand much about neurosurgery. I don’t take the – cannot – as a matter of a practical lack of time because of forced professional choices (say clergy) between reading every volume of Barth instead of learning the basic languages of mathematics fitted to the data of biology. But maybe this practical kind of – cannot (not enough time) – is a part of what you meant too.

I’m asking if you could provide a little more definition to your sense of – cannot?

It seems to me that most of the basic Darwinian observations are accessible as generic observations to almost everyone (superfecundity, variation, heredity). It’s the inference of natural selection that’s a particular hang up. For those with a theological bias this – cannot – may be formidable. Or seem so. Combine a strong theological bias (was it Morris who told Dennis Miller how the story must end because the Bible says so?) and with theological bias folded into biology like a protein folding problem mixed with a lack of competence at inference-making skills and this – cannot – goes beyond formidable to nearly insurmountable. Is there a sliding scale to this ‘cannot’?

There’s another – cannot – in the idiosyncratic point in these exchanges where professional biologists just walk away from theological conversations. This is a – cannot – in terms of how expensive it is in costs of time and emotional energy to translate mathematical and empirical stuff into ordinary prose. And hope for the best.

I can’t prove that I can do this – but I hope in my small sphere of influence to help close the gaps between – cannot – and will not. As nearly as possible. Not to make more converts to Darwin (though I’m convinced). But to promote theological engagement for believers who care enough at least to do the homework required in order to give an accurate and simple paraphrase of the science itself. The basic syllogism is extremely easy to paraphrase - with a little homework. Everything else you’ve written tells me you too believe that believers – can – give at least an accurate simple restatement and paraphrase of simple definitions and the syllogism for evolution.

And who knows – maybe ID or the absurdly obtuse specified complexity genre will inch toward something testable too?

I end up feeling sometimes that this – cannot – is a mysterious floating-point factor. Like an independent variable of willingness. Hard to pin down.

But I wish you would elaborate a little.

Jim

span style=“letter-spacing: 0.0px”>It is truly tiresome to keep hearing the same complaint that anyone who doesn’t buy into the Darwinist scheme is getting all of their information from Christian/creationist sources.  This is a very false assumption and shame on any scientist for making it.  Only occasionally have I visited the creationist or ID websites which have been referred to here, and most of them I’ve never seen.  Nor have I come to my anti-evolutionary position due to any religious dogma.  All of those allegations are just a load shoveled out by people who are apparently insecure in their own convictions.

How about plain common sense?  I think most people know that dogs are all dogs and you can’t breed a moose out of a Great Dane.  Don’t tell me evolution moves too slowly to see it.  Dogs have had plenty of time to evolve into some kind of critters that aren’t dogs anymore, but they haven’t.  Because they’re dogs and they’ll always be dogs and there’s a limit to their evolution and it’s called dog.  Don’t sell common sense short because God gave you a brain to use to good purpose.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, bren, but I just can’t buy it.  I’m still stunned.  Pangenesis was his more mature theory.  He had years to think about it and make careful observations in building on Origin.  You’d have to ask the textbook publishers why it didn’t make it into the Darwinian canon, but it should be taught in every high school because it reveals truth and why should science be afraid of truth?

That list is from an issue of the pro-Darwinist Discover magazine.  (I
don’t seem to have a copy of any Creationist magazines laying around).
 And why didn’t they evolve according to Discover author Valerie Ross?
 Uh, because they were good at eating and produced a lot of spores.
 Utter conjecture and not what I would call science.  The truth is Ross,
nor anyone else, can give a convincing answer.

I’d like to read the article!! Did you read it right from the magazine itself? Please give me the month and year of the issue.

I gotta say, this thread is quite illustrative.

The irony of Biologos is that it is promoting a tool—evidence-based critical thinking—to dispel creationism, but that same tool also dispels a great number of other beliefs, and quite easily. Biologos is saying, “Apply this wonderful tool to this one thing but not to this other thing.” It’s a contradiction which is bound to cause confusion, as this thread shows.

Evidence-based critical thinking suggests answers which are at odds with Biologos’ stated mission. But Biologos tells us Not To Go There, and some of its members are obliged, under direct threat to their employment and livelihood, Not To Go There. While promoting critical thinking, Biologos is engaged in the exact opposite of critical thinking.

Some individuals are comfortable with holding square circles in their mind, and they will gladly accept any tortuous philosophical system to justify them. Others are unable to take that route. Strict fundamentalists are merely pointing out the inconsistency in the viewpoint espoused by Biologos. They need the consistency of a liberal approach to religion. Will they accept it? Probably not, but square circles will fare even worse.