What Do Most Christians Really Believe About Evolution?

July 15, 2010
Category: Guest Features

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Today's entry was written by Dr. Joel W. Martin. Dr. Joel W. Martin is Curator of Crustacea and Chief of the Division of Invertebrate Studies at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California and at UCLA. His research interests include the morphology, natural history, and evolutionary relationships of crabs, lobsters, shrimps, and their many relatives. His research has benefitted from more than 20 grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation, and he is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Martin is also an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church USA, where he works with the high school youth ministry.

You’d think we would know the answer to that question by now. The issue is hardly new, and it seems like we’ve been discussing it for more than 100 years. Which, actually, we have, given that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection was first published in 1859, to immediate outcries of both admiration and consternation. In fact, it’s been 85 years this month since the first legal case was aired in Dayton, Tennessee, convicting substitute teacher John Scopes of the heinous crime of teaching evolution in a public school setting. So we’ve had plenty of time to learn where everyone stands on the issue of creationism and evolution, plenty of time to explore the complexities and nuances of the relationship between faith and science.

But we live in a world that hungers for simple answers to complex problems. We Americans in particular seldom take the time to come to our own conclusions on complicated matters; we often defer to others to tell us what to do, how to feel, what to believe, how to think. I’m as guilty as anyone else here.

Rather than following a complicated regimen of exercise and diet, we look for a pill to help us lose weight. Rather than reading the president’s health plan, we want someone to summarize for us what’s wrong (or right) with it. Rather than studying the political landscape in detail, we rely on talk shows to find out how we should vote. Instead of increasing our science literacy, we adopt someone else’s take on cloning, or global warming, or the Gulf oil spill, or evolution. And there is no shortage of persons eager to step in to do just that, to distill the world’s major issues into simplistic terms.

Unfortunately, the result is that we sometimes hear, either from the pulpit, on the campaign trail, or in the classroom, that (1) scientists as a group are atheistic, or that (2) Christians as a whole reject (or should reject) evolution. Neither is true, of course. But what do most scientists believe, and what do most Christians believe?

Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and General Editor of Science magazine, recently addressed what scientists believe (see Leshner’s June 15 article in the Huffington Post, repeated the next day in the On Faith blog of the Washington Post).

Leshner’s comments were based on the results of an in-depth survey of nearly 1,700 leading U.S. scientists conducted by Rice University’s Elaine Ecklund. Among other findings of Ecklund’s survey, Leshner noted that “half of the top 1,700 U.S. scientists described themselves as religious.”

Even some of the scientists who described themselves as atheistic or agnostic in her survey also identified themselves as “spiritual.” And in follow-up interviews, very few (only 5 of 275) scientists described themselves as actively opposing religion. So scientists are not uniformly atheistic and are not, as a group, opposed to religion. In fact, it appears, based on the Ecklund survey, that the majority of scientists have at least some spiritual leanings. To Leshner, and indeed to most scientists, this finding comes as no surprise. There is nothing inherently anti-religious about science, despite a few comments to the contrary from both creationist and atheist camps.

But what about the other question: What do Christians really believe about evolution?

That question might be slightly harder to answer. Although it is relatively easy to determine whether or not someone is a scientist, it can be quite difficult to get a handle on who is, and who is not, a Christian. For example, according to one website, there are more than 40 definitions of the word Christian available.

It’s also hard to find accurate estimates of the numbers of Christians, as some groups do not keep membership statistics, and some groups have no national or international headquarters that keep such data. And it can be difficult to figure out what Christians, or their organizations or spokespersons, believe about science in general and evolution in particular; “how to deal with modern science” is not usually seen as one of the most pressing issues facing religious organizations today. But as a proxy, we can at least survey the major U.S. Christian denominations and see what they have to say about the topic.

As part of my recent book on science and faith written for Christian teens, teachers, and study groups (The Prism and the Rainbow, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), that’s what I did. I searched for statements about science, and particularly on evolutionary biology, from a fairly large number of the better-known Christian groups in the U.S.

The results might be surprising to those who see the world, or wish to see it, in simple black and white terms. Catholics and many Protestant Christian groups (e.g. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans (ELCA), United Church of Christ, and others) have statements of faith that show absolutely no problem with evolution. Some even have strong statements attesting to how an understanding of modern evolutionary biology even enriches their faith.

One example is this statement from the 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church: “We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced.” A similar sentiment was expressed by the Presbyterian Church USA during their 214th General Assembly (2002, Columbus, Ohio) in a statement that “Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator” (Resolution Item 09-08, 2, p. 495).

Additionally, the Episcopal Church passed the following resolution during their 75th General Convention in 2006: “Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith…” (Resolution A129: Affirm Creation and Evolution).

Admittedly a blunt tool, my informal survey, based largely on statements from denominational leaders or from the official web sites of these groups, serves to show us that many of the major Christian denominations in the U.S. accept evolution. Furthermore, many see evolution as an enhancement of their faith, a further demonstration and confirmation of what they believe.

For those who have seen the strength of the scientific evidence for evolution, and who believe that they are called by God to explore His creation, this result should be hardly surprising. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that believers are to love the Lord their God with all of their heart, soul, and mind. In doing so, the practice of science inevitably brings them face-to-face with the reality of the creative process of evolution, revealed abundantly throughout nature. The strength of the scientific evidence convinces us that evolution, like gravity, is real. And just as is the case with gravity, it does not in any way threaten our faith.

It’s true that the single largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, appears to be adamantly opposed to understanding evolution, based on statements by its president, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (“There is no way for God to intervene in the process and for it to remain natural”). Baptists are not alone, of course. Strong anti-evolution statements also can be found in statements from the Assemblies of God, the Church of God (Cleveland), the Seventh Day Adventists, and other more fundamentalist-leaning groups (see the Appendix in The Prism and the Rainbow). But despite its size, the Southern Baptists are actually outnumbered by the combined memberships of denominations that are accepting of evolution.

Perhaps a more surprising result from the survey is the indication that, although this is far from proven, those persons with a deeper, stronger education in theology – not science, but theology – are the ones most likely to understand and accept evolution as part of their faith. One example of this was the 1998 survey of the Presbyterian Church USA, where the statement “evolutionary theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator” was agreed to by only 61% of the general membership but by 85% of the pastors. This seems to imply that although many church leaders tend to accept evolution, this acceptance does not seem to trickle down to the members of their congregations.

How common might this be? That is, how many pastors are actually accepting of evolution but are reluctant to reveal that fact to their congregation? If this situation is as widespread as I believe it to be, it would be very understandable. In their willingness and eagerness to open their arms and hearts to all who seek God, it is unlikely that the topic of biological evolution would ever be raised, either by the pastor or by someone seeking his/her advice and counsel. But maybe it’s time. After 150 years, that seems appropriate.

Filed Under:

Christianity, evangelicals, evolution, Darwin, science, belief, demographics, statement of faith

Share |

Comments (169)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

Allen - #21953

July 15^th 2010

One clarification, R. Albert Mohler is not president of SBC, just president of one of its seminaries. At conventions, I do not think the convention itself has ever endorsed either young earth creation or natural selection, but individual pastors at individual churches often push young earth.

At a church I used to attend, the pastor pushed young earth, but the congregation silently boycotted a “training class” he was pushing.

My general feeling about SBC churches after spending 40 years in them, is that the average lay person is tired of hearing about it, and just silently wishes the whole discussion would go away.
JKnott - #21956

July 15^th 2010

“In their willingness and eagerness to open their arms and hearts to all who seek God, it is unlikely that the topic of biological evolution would ever be raised, either by the pastor or by someone seeking his/her advice and counsel. But maybe it’s time.”

This seems a bit confused. If it is willingness to open arms and hearts to all, simply, that makes pastors reluctant to raise issues of science and origins, then how can it be “time” to raise the issue unless you’re advocating NOT opening arms and hearts to all? Surely, it’s not just a desire to reach out to all that keeps pastors from raising controversial or potentially controversial issues, but a very understandable (but not so laudable) fear of consequences. That is, they don’t want to reach out to people and be rejected. They, like most of us, want to be liked even if it means being a little disengenuous once in a while. Undersandable, again, but let’s call a spade a spade. Otherwise, this will be more likely to continue.
Paul Bruggink - #21957

July 15^th 2010

Re Allen’s “My general feeling . . . is that the average lay person is tired of hearing about it, and just silently wishes the whole discussion would go away”:

Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen soon. Dr. Mohler’s seminary students are likely to be taught his views, and they will be around for another 40 years. Then there is Dr. John MacArthur, who in the latest of his 40+ blogs supporting his interpretation of Gen. 1-11 refers to “the erosion of belief in Genesis among the Christian colleges in the national Christian College association” as “tacitly denying the authority of God’s Word”, “deliberately fudging on their interpretation of Genesis”, “abandoning the biblical account of creation”, “choosing to treat scientific theory as a higher authority than the plain treaching of Scripture”, “bending the rules of interpretation and playing games with the meaning of the text”, and “abandonment of the most important aspect of faith in the Bible—the conviction that Scripture is God’s Word and that it’s the ultimate, inviolable authority over every thought or theory of the human mind.”

Every one of the quotes above can be found in the PDF file referenced in his blog http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100713.
Argon - #21959

July 15^th 2010

What do Christians really believe about beer?
I mean, if there’s no consensus about something as simple as beer, what hope is there for a consensus about evolution?
Justin Poe - #21961

July 15^th 2010

Paul, and don’t forget the millions that visit the creation museum. 8,000 in the last 5 days alone.
Justin Poe - #21963

July 15^th 2010

Good point Argon. For the record…..beer rules!
Mike Gene - #21971

July 15^th 2010

Among other findings of Ecklund’s survey, Leshner noted that “half of the top 1,700 U.S. scientists described themselves as religious.”

Dr. Rosenhouse sees it differently:

Most interesting to me were the statistics she gathered regarding the religious beliefs of scientists at major American research universities. The picture I had prior to reading this book was that scientists were vastly more likely than the public generally to be nonreligious, and that where you did find religion it would be mostly of the theologically liberal sort. That picture is overwhelmingly confirmed by Ecklund’s data.

Asked about their beliefs in God, 34% chose “I don’t believe in God,” while 30% chose, “I do not know if there is a God, and there is no way to find out.” That’s 64% who are atheist or agnostic, as compared to just 6% of the general public.

An additional 8% opted for, “I believe in a higher power, but it is not God.” That makes 72% of scientists who are explicitly non-theistic in their religious views (compared to 16% of the public generally.) Pretty stark.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/scientists_and_religion.php
pcnielsen - #21977

July 15^th 2010

From someone admittedly ignorant — but eager to learn — on much to do with both science and theology, I have a question:

How does a Bible believing Christian insert, so to speak, the theory of evolution into the creation account of Genesis? Or do they? If a Christian accepts evolution as the method by which God created all things, does that person just look at Genesis 1 and 2 as a literary tool?

I greatly appreciate the fact that people on both sides of numerous issues, such as creation vs evolution, are finally engaging in civilized discussion and not just regurgitating their positions. Didn’t seem like that was happening very often even 10 years ago.
Paul Bruggink - #21981

July 15^th 2010

Re pcnielson #21977:

There are a number of good resources available and certainly no consensus on how to do it.

For books on integrating Genesis and evolution, you could try Keith B. Miller’s “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” or Denis Lamoureux’s ” I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution” or Stephen J. Godfrey & Christiopher R. Smith’s “Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation” or Joel Martin’s “The Prism and the Rainbow” (at the top of this blog).

For approaches to interpreting Genesis 1-11, you could try John H. Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate” or Gordon J.Glover’s “Beyond the Firmamant: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation” or C. John Collins’ “Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary” for example.

Online, the BioLogos website has a lot of good material in their Q&As;, essays (esp. Rev. Tim Keller’s “Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople”) and the Science & the Sacred blogs, as does the American Scientific Affiliation (“Learn More”) and Steve Martin’s blog “An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution” . Happy reading!
Dan - #21993

July 15^th 2010

”..many Protestant Christian groups (e.g. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans (ELCA), United Church of Christ, and others) have statements of faith that show absolutely no problem with evolution. Some even have strong statements attesting to how an understanding of modern evolutionary biology even enriches their faith.”

The Presbyterians, ELCA, UCC, Episcopal and United Methodist churchs are all in the throes of potential schism over the ordination of openly gay persons to the pastorate and episcopate. Most have similarly permissive stances on abortion. Theologically many in those groups have denied essential doctrines related to the Trinity, the deity of Christ and some have embraced things as radical as Wicca, Druidism and one “priestess” claimed to be both Christian and Muslim at the same time. Any connection with the hermeneutic that places more value in cultural contextualization than the text itself?

It is not illogical to think that if the Genealogies that treat Genesis as historical or Paul’s references to Adam as historical can be explained away as cultural accommodation to more primitive understanding, then moral and theological propositions in scripture can also be “reinterpreted” quite easily.
Dan - #21994

July 15^th 2010

I should add, the boundary pushers in the mailine denominations are the educated leaders, not the rank and file parishoners.
R Hampton - #21997

July 15^th 2010

The folks at the blog JesusCreed had a series of posts on Elaine Howard Ecklund’s book, “Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.”

One important myth is that many if not most scientists are actively working against religion, deeply hostile. Yet of the 275 interview conducted, only 5 were actively hostile. This is ~2% of the cohort. Another myth is that there are no religious scientists, especially at our elite Universities. Yet Ecklund found that 18% of the scientists attended religious services at least once a month. About 7% are conservative to moderate Protestants or Catholics, about 17% are liberal Protestants or Catholics.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find a reciprocal acceptance for evolution among Protestant clergy.
Canadain evangelical - #22002

July 15^th 2010

“It’s true that the single largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention”

It’s only the largest Protestant denomination (whatever that means, since Catholics don’t have denominations, the “Protestant” is superfluous) in one country in the entire world, the U.S. Most Christians, including evangelical Christians, in the many other countries in the Western world have little or no problem with evolution.

BioLogos has an unhealthy fixation with internecine domestic squabbles, failing to see the bigger, worldwide picture.

There’s a whole big world out there. BioLogos should explore it sometime.
conrad - #22033

July 15^th 2010

Evolution belongs in Day 7,... the day God rested.
Selective breeding can change the way a group of animals looks,... that is NOT CREATING A NEW SPECIES.

The creation story doesn’t get to biology until the 5th day.
Evolution says nothing about creation,... [which scientists acknowledge but denigrate by calling it the Big Bang.

When God invented DNA it became possible to selectively breed animals.
THAT IS NOT A PART OF “CREATION”.]
Justin Poe - #22039

July 15^th 2010

Dan,

I said the exact same thing on here about 3 weeks ago and my entire 5000 word post got deleted immediately.

BL fails to see (or fails to admit) the correlation to between liberalism in churches and the acceptance of a mythological Gen 1-11. BL wants us to believe that churches in America that are adamantly against abortion, gay marriage, women pastors, ect are somehow ready though to embrace their theory of theology and science.

Originally my whole post centered around Joel Hunter’s video on evangelical pastors and churches and I really took issue with his def of evangelical. I laid out the exact same argument that you just did.
R Hampton - #22041

July 15^th 2010

BL wants us to believe that churches in America that are adamantly against abortion, gay marriage, women pastors, ect are somehow ready though to embrace their theory of theology and science.

Catholic Churches do all of the above.
conrad - #22054

July 15^th 2010

The genesis story spends very little time on different animals and sort of lumps all animal life as a single creation,.... BECAUSE IT IS.
THE PLASTICITY OF THE GENOME ALLOWS ALL KINDS OF SPECIES TO DEVELOP.

WHEN THE GENE CHANGES AND THE ANIMAL CHANGES IT IS NO BIGGIE.

YES WE HAVE EVOLUTION.
YES GOD CREATED ANIMALS.
YES THEY MUTATE AND EVOLVE.
THESE ARE NOT CONCEPTS IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.
conrad - #22055

July 15^th 2010

And furthermore…... Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive or competitive concepts.

God created the moldable genome.
Mike Blyth - #22067

July 16^th 2010

Canadian Evangelical,

You’re persistent comments have made me curious. Why do you follow Biologos, or how do you think it should change to be more relevant? Its mission statement includes, “[we] are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation.” As you infer, this mission is most relevant in the US, where many Christians and churches have issues in this area. Many or most Christians in the rest of the world do not. So, Biologos is founded to address a mainly American controversy, yet you regularly criticize it—or are you criticizing the readers?—for “failing to see the bigger, worldwide picture.” It might be helpful if you would join in by discussing how Christians in the rest of the world have avoided or solved this conflict, and how their example might be applied in the US, thus helping Biologos to have the wider picture you see lacking.
eddy - #22069

July 16^th 2010

BioLogos are adamant to let us believe that were it not for a coercion from the high-profile anti-evolution evangelical Christian leaders, most average evangelicals would have warmly embraced evolutionism, very, very, long time ago. But I have a different view. I am just an average Christian who do not give a damn about what Ham, or Mohler, or McUrther says. In fact, I am not even an American national. Yet, I reject evolutionism, to be unscientific (FYI, I have a significant training in Science, with an MSc, in one of the science subjects) and untrue, let aside its incompatibility with Christian understanding of God’s dealings with the natural world.

Yes some people would say they are christians and believe evolutionism is compatible and enriches their faith, and yes, most of these christians will tell you Jesus was not divine and his historical physical resurrection is not essential for their faith. Perhaps people are entitled to believe what they want to believe, but to us, through reading, through common sense and through that important whisper ultras of God’s Spirit, are capable of discerning what is true and what is self-deception feel good crapola.
penman - #22071

July 16^th 2010

Eddy:
<<BioLogos are adamant to let us believe that were it not for a coercion from the high-profile anti-evolution evangelical Christian leaders, most average evangelicals would have warmly embraced evolutionism, very, very, long time ago.>>

BioLogos team, is that your view? I’d put it like this: had it not been for a transformation in evangelical attitudes in the 1960s, most evangelicals would embrace “deep time”, & evolution would at least be discussible.

(I don’t want to keep recommending them, but Livingstone’s “Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders” & Numbers’ “The Creationists” are essential reading on how we got to be where we are.)

The problem at grass roots level now is that the vast majority of evangelicals have no understanding of science at all, only read YEC literature, & think that all scientists are involved in a consciously deceitful atheist conspiracy to deny the Truth. These attitudes are destructive.

<<some people would say they are christians and believe evolutionism is compatible and enriches their faith, and yes, most of these christians will tell you Jesus was not divine and his historical physical resurrection is not essential for their faith>>

They won’t say THAT here.
Robert Byers - #22072

July 16^th 2010

First most evangelical Christians accept the bible as the word of God. or all of them.
So they accept Genesis as true. I am Canadian and its true here.
it is largely us that take on intellectually evolutionism or any bible denying doctrine. very successfully. Thats why Biologos came into existence. Its trying to convince evangelicals they are wrong.

Organized Creationism is a manifestation of this general opinion. its of late become very famous and getting more so from leadership and lay people abilities.

To teach the accuracy of gEnesis is to teach the accuracy of all scripture. So its embraced by Evangelical christians. It simply however deals with subjects one must pay attention too and so not many do.

Biologos, though hostile, is a great forum for creationism to make its excellent observations and discoveries of error in subjects dealing in origins in schoolin places. to Christian thinkers who don’t buy creationism.
eddy - #22077

July 16^th 2010

“The problem at grass roots level now is that the vast majority of evangelicals have no understanding of science at all, only read YEC literature, & think that all scientists are involved in a consciously deceitful atheist conspiracy to deny the Truth.”

There is such an unhealthy YECphobia here that whenever the fractured story of the evolutionism that is so murky, so strange, so pathetic and so unChristian fails to penetrate the minds of so many biblically faithful evangelicals, the obvious target to blame are YECs.

For everybody living today being exposed in a culture where, as a matter of indisputable and unegotiable creed, evolutionism is praised and YECism is vilified, in public schools, in the media, and in the entertainment industry, isn’t it egregious on your part to blame YEC? If there was supposed to be the age when evolutionism finally made the big breakthrough by reaching out to the entire generation, it is this one. If evolutionism is true, why don’t you let the truth win for its truthfulness sake, instead of pushing blame where it does not deserve?
penman - #22080

July 16^th 2010

Eddy:
<<If evolutionism is true, why don’t you let the truth win for its truthfulness sake, instead of pushing blame where it does not deserve?>>

Change “evolutionism” to evolution (i.e. the scientific theory), & I’m quite happy to let truth win for its own sake, Eddy. But in the church circles I move in, you can’t even have the discussion, because the moment people realise you find the scientific theory convincing, you are howled down as a compromiser, apostate, liberal, etc. I’ve said before, the reaction is like you’ve “turned to the Dark Side”.

It isn’t YEC-phobia I see all around me. It’s the exact opposite. It’s evolution-phobia, science-phobia, even geology-phobia. I’m glad to find a forum like BioLogos where I can get out of that withering atmosphere. Maybe the YEC-phobia you detect here is just people like me ventilating their frustrations!

I don’t necessarily agree with everything said on BioLogos by fellow Christians who embrace evolution (I’m not giving up on a historical Adam), but it’s the best forum for these discussions. So I don’t withdraw my observations about how YECism functions within the churches, but I’m very happy to cheer on discussion of the issues.
gingoro - #22084

July 16^th 2010

Canadian Evangelical
I suggest you try going to a few Fellowship Baptist churches in Canada and try introducing in a Sunday school class that you accept an old earth and evolution. I think the problem is greater in Canada than you admit, it is just that the religious right here has less muscle than in the USofA.

Dave W (also a Cdn Evangelical in the reformed tradition, given the right definition of Evangelical)
Karl A - #22085

July 16^th 2010

Eddy 22069 “BioLogos are adamant to let us believe that were it not for a coercion from the high-profile anti-evolution evangelical Christian leaders, most average evangelicals would have warmly embraced evolutionism, very, very, long time ago.”

Coercion, no. Fudging (or willful ignorance of) the facts, and therefore misleading the flocks, yes.

Dr. Martin, changing the subject… if my memory serves me correctly, you have a similar specialty to Dr. Richard Sternberg, famous (around here) for saying whales couldn’t have evolved by RM+NS. Do you have any comments on Dr. Sternberg’s positions?
eddy - #22100

July 16^th 2010

Penman: “Change “evolutionism” to evolution (i.e. the scientific theory),” . It doesn’t make the difference. By the way, evolutionists would be mad at you calling a “fact” a theory.

It would be wise if people stopped discussing disputed science issues in Churches because we have such an abundant time to discuss them in formal scientific forums. The churches are supposed to be strictly sacred places where believers gathers to worship God together and encourage each other in faith.

You are telling half-truths, penman. First, if you found evolutionism convincing you wouldn’t be finding it hard to reject Adam and Eve. Second, what you are saying goes against so much of what we expect, given the fact that at any rate, there are christians trained in biology, geology or physics, in any YEC churches. So if these churches were really such anti science we wouldn’t find any scientist given membership in these churches. And by the way, why don’t you join an Episcopal or Lutheran or Catholic churches? These churches, we are told here, are actively pro-science!
conrad - #22114

July 16^th 2010

Well Chandra Wickramasingh and Sir Fred Hoyle figured out that there was not enough time for “evolution” to create DNA.
But after GOD created DNA,... it is like tinker toys, or leggo blocks, or Lincoln logs,.... a lot of different structures can be built out of it.
God built the DNA, gene system.

THAT DNA COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED, according to those who have done the math.
Joel Martin - #22129

July 16^th 2010

Hi everyone,
Sorry to be so late wading into this. I was not certain when it would be posted, so I missed the chance to chime in earlier. I’m grateful to see all of your comments and questions, some of which will be (I hope) clarified if you read the book, as opposed to my short essay based on one of its chapters.

To reply to some of the comments—there is no YEC phobia, just as there is no flat earth phobia. These ideas are not feared, just curiosities, and it is interesting to me that they persist. To those of you who feel evolution is somehow anti-Christian, I would ask you to substitute the word “gravity” in place of evolution into your argmuents, and see how it reads. Evolution and gravity are not opinions or styles or choices about how the world works; they are our best current understanding based on all available scientific evidence. To deny either is simply silly in this day and age, and it is ultimately harmful to the institution of Christianity.

To reply specifically to Karl A, I do know Richard Sternberg and I am a colleague - we both study crustaceans - but no, I am not at all in agreement with his statements and opinions as concerns ID, including whales.

Best wishes to all of you,

Joel Martin
John - #22131

July 16^th 2010

Robert Byers wrote:
“To teach the accuracy of gEnesis is to teach the accuracy of all scripture.”

Let me get this straight: do you treat the entire Bible literally, and none of it as parable or metaphor?

“So its embraced by Evangelical christians.”

I only see them claiming. In reality, they pick and choose.

“It simply however deals with subjects one must pay attention too and so not many do.”

I’m paying attention. Do you take the entire Bible literally, Robert Byers?
Justin Poe - #22134

July 16^th 2010

Robert,

Your argument gets thrown out here all the time and it’s beyond easy to refute. When parables were used in Scripture it was almost always prefaced with a phrase such as , “and Jesus told this parable…..” so there is zero dispute. There is no dispute amongst TE and YEC as to when apocalyptic writings are used, or poetry in Psalms, ect.

Only in the last 150-200 years has Genesis been under attack by post modern science. Started first by atheists (at the very least agnostics) in the form of Charles Lyell and now….........
John - #22142

July 16^th 2010

Justin wrote:
“When parables were used in Scripture it was almost always prefaced with a phrase such as , “and Jesus told this parable…..” so there is zero dispute. “

Interesting. If it is “almost always prefaced,” what about the exceptions? And how did you get from “almost always” to “zero dispute”?

“Only in the last 150-200 years has Genesis been under attack by post modern science.”

The idea that people do science to attack Genesis is preposterous. It’s ignorance that’s under attack, not Genesis.

But it explains why no one in the IDC movement has sufficient faith to test an IDC hypothesis in the lab or in the field. If Genesis is under attack and you have so much faith in its literal truth, why not support it by seeking new evidence?

“Started first by atheists (at the very least agnostics) in the form of Charles Lyell and now…”

Now what? People using evolutionary theory to making influenza vaccines are doing so to attack Genesis in your mind?
Justin Poe - #22161

July 16^th 2010

Couple of things John….

One, my post had nothing to do with influenza. You quoted my Charles Lyell ref and that was supposed to be towards geology, he was a geologist. I made no ref to biology. Anyway, evolution in general has zero, nada, nothing to do with the discovery of vaccines….Louis Pasteur was skeptical his whole life of Darwinian evolution, Robert Kock, although not a Christian per se, completely threw out Darwinian evolution in his vaccination studies. Furthermore, ask anybody working on vaccinations today and you will be told that they were never even taught Darwinian evolution at the Masters or PhD level. It’s irrelevant to the study unless your whole goal is to prove Darwinian evolution.

As far as the parables go, I didn’t take the time to look every single one up, but I will if you want me to and I bet we’ll find that everyone of them is prefaced with the statement in one shape or another. How many articles have you seen on Biologos disputing the parables? How many at AIG? Answer, none.

Why is it so preposterous that people do do science to attack Genesis. One, I never clarified which science. Most atheistic scientists could quite frankly care less about Genesis and they disregard…
Jusitn Poe - #22162

July 16^th 2010

cont…

from the start. i guess I should have clarified TE scientists. TE HAVE to attack the first 11 chapters of Genesis and conform to uniformitarianism or there would be zero point in being a TE. IF uniformitarinism crumbles, then the TE theories completely fall apart.
Gregory - #22163

July 16^th 2010

Hello Dr. Martin,

As per your subtitle: “A Christian Explains Why Evolution is not a Threat”...

...would you say the same thing or not if the term ‘Evolutionism’ was substituted for ‘Evolution’?

If not, I wonder: why?

Just curious,
Thanks,
Gregory
John - #22165

July 16^th 2010

Justin wrote:
“Anyway, evolution in general has zero, nada, nothing to do with the discovery of vaccines…”

Justin, try putting down the goalposts and reading what I actually wrote, please. It has everything to do with MAKING them.

“Furthermore, ask anybody working on vaccinations today and you will be told that they were never even taught Darwinian evolution at the Masters or PhD level.”

Whether they were taught it is irrelevant, and I suspect that you know that.

“It’s irrelevant to the study unless your whole goal is to prove Darwinian evolution.”

It’s highly relevant to making infulenza vaccines and to understanding HIV infection. Both viruses evolve rapidly in real time. Moreover, if God designed your immune system, He set it up so that it works by genetic variation (random wrt to fitness) and selection.

Oh, and on an epistemological note, science isn’t about proving things. All conclusions are tentative.

“As far as the parables go, I didn’t take the time to look every single one up, but I will if you want me to and I bet we’ll find that everyone of them is prefaced with the statement in one shape or another.”

If you were so confident, why did you qualify your earlier statement?
John - #22166

July 16^th 2010

Justin wrote:
“Why is it so preposterous that people do do science to attack Genesis. One, I never clarified which science. Most atheistic scientists could quite frankly care less about Genesis and they disregard…”

I think you just answered your own question, Justin.

I do biomedical research to help suffering people and because I enjoy learning about biology.
Papalinton - #22168

July 16^th 2010

YEC’s, creationism [Intelligent Design] has an impressive recent record of being a science than can operate across several disciplines. It does most of its important research experiments and investigative discoveries, not in science labs as you would imagine, but through extensive field studies, in state legislatures, through boards of education, and in the country’s various courts of law at the local and Supreme Court levels. It is a remarkable inter-disciplinary achievement in science, with a debt of gratitude owing to the Discovery Institute among others. The US is truly on the way to reshaping science as we know it.

Cheers
Ken Wolgemuth - #22170

July 16^th 2010

Papalinton,

I am a Christian geologist, and I would like you to name, describe, and explain one example of a field study from young-earth creationism that has generate a credible understanding that the earth is less that 10,000 years old, with sound science based on principles of chemistry and physics.

Most what we hear is faulty science, and I have hear it myself in 6 Southern Baptists churches and seminaries.

Your brother in Christ,

Ken Wolgemuth, Ph.D.
Petroleum geologist and geochemist
Solid Rock Lectures
Tulsa, OK
wolgemuth2@aol.com
918-852-3082
Papalinton - #22177

July 17^th 2010

Ken Wolgemuth - #22170

Sorry Ken, my comment was pure irony, pure persiflage. How many sciences do you know that undertake their research in halls of justice, or legislative assembly halls? I agree absolutely with you, there is not one ...“field study from young-earth creationism that has generated a credible understanding that the earth is less that 10,000 years old….” And yes, most what we hear is faulty science.

Incidentally, I am a non-believer. Do you think less of me now?

Cheers
HornSpiel - #22179

July 17^th 2010

Papalinton ,
YEC’s, creationism [Intelligent Design] has an impressive recent record of being a science than [sic] can operate across several disciplines.

Do yo realize that most leading ID researchers accept an old earth (Meyer, Behe, Johnson) . I find it curious how the ID movement can hold together with such disparate and incompatible views represented.
eddy - #22189

July 17^th 2010

Dr. Martin says: “To those of you who feel evolution is somehow anti-Christian, I would ask you to substitute the word “gravity” in place of evolution into your argmuents, and see how it reads.”

Dr. Martin, your suggested substitution is a misplaced one. To my understanding there is no one disputing that the earth is spherical or gravity is real among christians. The fact that evolutionism is currently a contentious issues should tell you more about either the validity of the theory itself or the incompatibility with Christian beliefs.

Being a scientist, it may be in your own interests not to offer a god-did-it explanation for what we observe in nature in order not to limit your explanatory scope and offset your God given curious mind; and to many Christians, it is not in their interest to be such reductionists, and pretend they don’t know, and subscribe to “blind naturalism did it” equally religious philosophy of evolutionism.
Papalinton - #22202

July 17^th 2010

Hi HornSpiel - #22179

I too am curious ...“how the ID movement can hold together with such disparate and incompatible views represented.”

But then belief can be an unwieldy beast if not guided in an appropriate fashion. All manner of unintended consequences could manifest.

Cheers
Rich - #22209

July 17^th 2010

Hornspiel:

The ID movement holds together, despite differences among its supporters, in the same way that any movement holds together. There is common ground among the differing individuals.

The common ground is that the complex integration seen in living systems did not arise via chance mutations plus natural selection, even supplemented by other stochastic processes. Something else had to be involved.

Where ID proponents differ is over what that “something else” is. Was it a series of miraculous interventions, punctuating a natural evolutionary process? Was it direct creation of basic families or orders? Was there a program built into the first living cells, so that they could evolve into more complex beings, not by mere chance, but in definite directions (as witnessed by convergent evolution), even though no miraculous intervention took place? Is life the manifestation of a Platonic intelligence that brings about biological form along certain lines?

Thus, ID is compatible with anything from YEC to fully naturalistic macroevolution. What it isn’t compatible with is classic neo-Darwinism. (Of course, it’s compatible with neo-Darwinian mechanisms in an ancillary role—see Behe, Denton.)
John - #22217

July 17^th 2010

Rich wrote:

“Was it a series of miraculous interventions…direct creation of basic families or orders…program built into the first living cells, so that they could evolve into more complex beings, not by mere chance,…”

Darwinian evolution is not “mere chance,” so your use of this term suggests an intent to deceive.

”...a Platonic intelligence that brings about biological form along certain lines?”

All good questions, and many of them lead to testable hypotheses. But the common ground within the movement is that its members universally lack sufficient faith to even try to answer any of these questions empirically.

Instead, for political reasons they try to pretend that science isn’t data-driven, but instead is like high-school debate. Even those who used to do science promote this deliberate deception.

“Thus, ID is compatible with anything….”

Which by itself is sufficient to show that it isn’t science. It’s a political movement.

“What it isn’t compatible with is classic neo-Darwinism. (Of course, it’s compatible with neo-Darwinian mechanisms in an ancillary role—see Behe, Denton.)”

Your use of the term “Darwinism” suggests a political motivation to obfuscate.
Rich - #22220

July 17^th 2010

pcnielsen (21977):

Another deeply Christian scientist who accepts evolution is Michael Behe. His books criticize certain versions of evolution, but not evolution itself. *Darwin’s Black Box* is a good read—but you should have a good handle on your high school chemistry, and if you’ve done some university-level chemistry, that would make the reading faster. But Behe is conscious of the needs of the lay audience and writes well for non-scientists.
Rich - #22226

July 17^th 2010

John:

I know what Darwinian evolution is. Unlike most Darwinians, I’ve actually read Darwin, and very carefully, too. I also grew up a rabid Darwinian, and was steeped in the version of neo-Darwinism promoted by Gaylord Simpson, Carl Sagan, etc.

According to classic neo-Darwinism the mutations *are* “mere chance”. Selection only prunes; it creates nothing. Selection thus has to work on what chance spits out, and it can only confirm or veto.

There is no attempt to deceive on my part; that’s just what the theory is. Of course, if you want to add in recent developments within evolutionary biology in which non-stochastic mechanisms are seriously considered, that’s fine, but that’s not neo-Darwinism.

Your chopping off of my quotation was materially misleading and would, in a university setting, be classed as academically dishonest.

Also, I didn’t mention “Darwinism”, but “classical neo-Darwinism”, and “neo-Darwinian mechanisms”. And of course, if I *had* used “Darwinism”, it would have been a short form for the above, not as a political term. Your accusation is groundless.

Hornspiel, was my explanation helpful?
Rich - #22227

July 17^th 2010

John:

Out of curiosity, why do you turn every thread on which I post into an aggressive combat over neo-Darwinism and ID? This thread is supposed to focus on a survey on what Christians believe about evolution. The comments I posted were informational, explaining the ID position on evolution to someone who had a question. I wasn’t pushing any position, or attacking any position. Yet your comments throw down the gauntlet. Why? Why can’t you just me explain something I know extremely well (better than anyone here), that is, the ID position, to someone who asks about it? What harm does it do you if I improve someone’s understanding of ID, in a post in which I don’t even endorse ID, but merely describe the range of positions that it embraces? Why is it so difficult for you to abide even a neutral presentation of the ID concept?
John - #22228

July 17^th 2010

Behe *is* a non-scientist.

He admitted under oath that he doesn’t even bother to read the primary scientific literature any more. When he was confronted with his falsehood from DBB about immunology, he desperately moved the goalposts.

His whole spiel on malaria in his more recent book was based on taking a passage out of context from a review.
Justin Poe - #22229

July 17^th 2010

John,

Do you know how many times Darwin used the word “chance” himself in his OtOOS?????

I don’t t know the exact number myself but I when I read just last month I was astounded at the amount of times he used the term, “chance”.
John - #22230

July 17^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“I know what Darwinian evolution is.”

Then your misrepresentations are simply dishonest.

“According to classic neo-Darwinism…”

I’m sorry, but what does the prefix “classic neo-” mean, exactly? It looks like incoherent word salad to me, except for your addition of “-ism” at the end, which just looks dishonest.

”... the mutations *are* “mere chance”. Selection only prunes; it creates nothing. Selection thus has to work on what chance spits out, and it can only confirm or veto.”

Sorry, Rich, but no honest human outside of a polemic anti-science rant would claim that humans didn’t CREATE all the breeds of dogs we have today. They were created by humans via artificial selection.

You’re also being deceptive with your harping on “mutation.” Darwin didn’t mention it. More importantly, you’re ignoring existing heritable variation (polymorphism), but you can’t resist putting in “random” for purely polemic reasons.
John - #22231

July 17^th 2010

“There is no attempt to deceive on my part; that’s just what the theory is.”

Rich, I don’t think you can write a sentence about evolution without attempting to deceive.

“Your chopping off of my quotation was materially misleading and would, in a university setting, be classed as academically dishonest.”

Your quotation was available to everyone just above my comment.

“Also, I didn’t mention “Darwinism”, but “classical neo-Darwinism”, and “neo-Darwinian mechanisms”. And of course, if I *had* used “Darwinism”, it would have been a short form for the above, not as a political term.”

Using the suffix “-ism” was purely political and polemic on your part.
Rich - #22232

July 17^th 2010

John:

I find it odd that someone with no visible scientific accomplishments should think himself in a position to pass judgment on who is and who isn’t a scientist.
John - #22233

July 17^th 2010

Justin wrote:
“I don’t t know the exact number myself but I when I read just last month I was astounded at the amount of times he used the term, “chance”.”

And he wrote it in a context that everyone accepts. Every population has variability, and everyone knows that some of that is inherited. I don’t see anyone disagreeing with the term when it is used in clinical genetics, do you?

How many times did Darwin use the word “mutation”? Or the word “random”?
Rich - #22236

July 17^th 2010

John:

You apparently know little about evolutionary theory, Neo-Darwin*ism*, with the suffix, has been used for years, by many evolutionary biologists, as a non-political self-description.

I’ve never attempted to deceive anyone in this forum about anything. Your accusation regarding my motives is groundless. The probable cause is that so many people who write on these blog sites have strong prior motivations, often affecting their judgment and their debating tactics, that you have become cynical and cannot recognize someone who is actually being honest and open when you meet him.

Your excuse for chopping off my quotation is unacceptable. At least some people would not have read the full quotation; and in any case, it’s irresponsible to make them look for it, in order to see how misleading your application was. The verdict is still academic dishonesty. Didn’t they teach you how to quote in the science program you went through at—where was it again?
Roy - #22237

July 17^th 2010

Rich,

It seems to me that it is really quite easy to determine whether an individual is a scientist. Does the individual in question attend scientific conferences and participate in scientific debates/dialogues with peers? Is the person employed at a research/academic institution? Is the person doing research, publishing and submitting it to peer review?

Kevin Padian has a basic explanation

I would say that according to these criteria Behe is not a ‘scientist’ as he is not doing ‘science’. In the same way I would suggest that somebody like Richard Dawkins is not really a scientist, although he used to be (as did Behe), but is really more of a popularizer of science.

P.S. If you include ID’s own journals etc., then it seems to me that you also have to regard the YEC ‘journals’/‘research’ community as scientific too.
Rich - #22238

July 17^th 2010

Mike Gene (21971):

Thanks for your correction above. I knew there was something wrong with the description and application of the statistics in the above article. Anyone who follows the many, many polls on the religious beliefs of scientists other than Ecklund’s knows (1) that the degree of unbelief in *conventional* theism of any kind is very high among scientists; (2) that it’s higher among scientists than among the general public. What the above article presents as following from Ecklund’s data thus should make people quite suspicious. But as Rosenhouse has pointed out, Ecklund’s data don’t support the rosy picture painted above. I think there is some wishful thinking going on here. Someone who says he is “religious” or “spiritual” is not necessarily a theist in any conventional sense. People have tried, based on some “spiritual” ruminations, to pass off Einstein as a theist, an error so common that eventually he was forced to publically correct the record. The scientific professoriate on the whole leans toward no religion or very liberal religion. (Of course, that is probably true not just of scientists but of academics in general. It would be interesting to see inter-disciplinary comparisons.)
Rich - #22240

July 17^th 2010

Roy:

I’m uninterested in cheap exercises in labelling conducted by armchair bloggers with no scientific accomplishments to their credit. The question is whether Behe’s arguments can pass scientific muster. If John thinks he can disprove Behe’s overall argument, before an audience of competent judges (which is not here, as only a small portion of the people who comment here have advanced scientific training), he knows where the official journals are; he knows how to join a scientific association and present a conference paper, etc. Let him stand in the ring for 15 rounds with Behe. I won’t waste time responding to his biting attacks on me until he has done so.
Rich - #22242

July 17^th 2010

pcneilsen:

I hope you are watching the dynamics here. You asked for thoughts about religion and evolution. One person suggested that you read a bunch of writings by TEs—theistic evolutionists of a certain type. Without criticizing that person or putting down his recommendations, I gave you the name of another religious scientist, Michael Behe, who also supports evolution. Immediately this thread was inundated with criticism of Behe. Certain people here don’t want you to read Behe. You have to ask yourself, why is that?

Keep in mind that while this is a site run by and primarily aimed at Christians, many people post here who are atheists, followers of a materialistic version of evolutionary theory. It is at least possible that some of the people who are bashing Dr. Behe (a very fine Christian) are complete religious unbelievers themselves. Thus far, anyway, their postings have indicated zero interest in religion. So take all of this into account. These forums are far from neutral places. Best wishes.
gingoro - #22245

July 17^th 2010

Roy @22237

“It seems to me that it is really quite easy to determine whether an individual is a scientist.”

Lots of people do science that don’t meet your criteria as they live behind corporate security barriers and so publish little if anything. They may attend outside conferences but often attend corporate internal conferences. Probably their name is on patents and their ideas and discoveries end up in products introduced by the company they work for. Your criteria is sufficient but not necessary. There may be other exceptions like scientists in government employ. The boundary between science and engineering gets very fuzzy when new concepts are being explored.
Dave W
Papalinton - #22249

July 17^th 2010

Hi Rich

Get over it. You’ve been caught out. Accept it and move on to the next topic. Behe is not a scientist; he had foregone that distinction the moment he joined the Discovery Institute. ID, creationism is a cul-de-sac for science.

Cheers
Rich - #22250

July 17^th 2010

Papalinton:

What are your qualifications in science, the history science, the philosophy of science, or the sociology of science to make that determination? If they are like those of most other Behe-bashers here, they are zero.

Why aren’t you commenting on the subject of this thread, instead of ganging up on me and attacking Behe? Are you like so many other commenters who visit this site, a materialistic atheist without the slightest interest in the mission of Biologos, merely cruising through, looking for a chance to plug Darwin, bash ID, etc.? Or do you have any positive contribution to make to discussions of the relationship between science and religion, which is what Biologos is about? I’ve asked this question of John, Argon, Alan Fox, and several others, and received no answer. Now I’m asking it of you. What’s your interest here? If all you want to do is bash Behe, go to Pharyngula or Panda’s Thumb. This isn’t the place for that. This is a place for people who care enough about both science *and* God to wrestle with the question of the interrelationship between the two. Do you care about that at all?
Larry - #22256

July 17^th 2010

Actually Rich, the onus is on Behe to come up with the goods. As mentioned by Steve Matheson on his blog, himself quoting Dawkins;

“If correct, Behe’s calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think?”
Larry - #22257

July 17^th 2010

Matheson then continues;
“If you don’t find the preceding to be a devastatingly damning criticism of Behe’s project, then you either don’t understand what those scientists actually did (and you’re in good company), or you actually do believe that Michael Behe is the architect of the most cataclysmic scientific paradigm shift since Copernicus. The point is that a person (like me) who knows some evolutionary genetics is left with a more difficult choice: whether to believe that Behe is really that ignorant and arrogant, or to believe that he lacks a full commitment to scientific integrity. While considering those options, one tends not to dwell so much on etiquette and gentility.”
Joel Martin - #22259

July 17^th 2010

Hi everyone,

It’s becoming clear to me that I won’t be able to keep up with all of these comments and thoughts as regularly as I’d like to. I’m happy to have been the source of so much discussion, albeit some of it, in my opinion, a bit misplaced.

This first reply is to Gregory (22163, from yesterday) with, again, my apologies for my delay. If you check out the book, you’ll see that I do actually discuss the use of “-ism” words in a few places (e.g. p. 143, note 6). For the most part, they (the “-ism” words) tend to be used in a pejorative sense today, in an attempt to discredit or cast aspersions on something that the user simply does not like, because so many similar words historically have negative baggage associated with them – Marxism, Nazism, communism, etc. This is precisely why anti-evolution critics continue to use “Darwinism” (whereas most scientists do not), to imply some sort of dangerous philosophy or mindset rather than the extremely well-tested and well accepted body of scientific evidence that is today’s evolutionary biology.

I’ll continue this below, so that I don’t exceed my character count.

Joel Martin
Joel Martin - #22261

July 17^th 2010

Continuing my reply to Gregory:

After all, we don’t use the words “Keplerism” or “Newtonism” to refer to modern physics, in part because of the tremendous advances and progress made in that field since the days of those early pioneers. The same thing is true for evolutionary biology, and it’s the reason why I (and many others) avoid words such as Darwinism, evolutionism, etc. Those words simply serve no real purpose today, and there are several published articles explaining why they are anachronisms that should be avoided.

In a fascinating historical parallel, the 19th century flat earth advocates (e.g. Lady Elizabeth Blount, S. Rowbotham, S. Shenton, W. Voliva, and others) did use the word “Newtonism” to refer to “round earth belief,” and for exactly the same reasons: They feared and disliked the “globists” (round earth advocates) - and called them un-Christian for the same reason—and wanted to cast doubt on their insistence that we live on a globe. Christine Garwood’s 2007 book on the history of the flat earth movement is truly interesting in that regard.

Hope that helps a little.

Best wishes to everyone,

Joel Martin
Joel Martin - #22262

July 17^th 2010

Hi everyone,

Responding now to Eddy #22189:

You wrote: “Dr. Martin, your suggested substitution is a misplaced one. To my understanding there is no one disputing that the earth is spherical or gravity is real among christians. The fact that evolutionism is currently a contentious issues should tell you more about either the validity of the theory itself or the incompatibility with Christian beliefs.”

Eddy, your understanding is imperfect, and I think you should look at this historically. Today, there may be no one disputing that the earth is spherical (or not many, at least), but that has not always been the case. See Christine Garwood’s (2007) book, which details the activities of several movements and writers, most basing their views on their (cleary wrong) interpretation of Scripture, advocating for a flat earth in very recent times (and you might actually want to read my book before commenting further). A spherical earth was hotly “contentious” to them, but it was never a scientific issue. Just like evolution today. The suggested substitution is perfectly appropriate and, I think, helpful and revealing.

Best wishes,

Joel Martin
John - #22266

July 17^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“You apparently know little about evolutionary theory, Neo-Darwin*ism*, with the suffix, has been used for years, by many evolutionary biologists, as a non-political self-description.”

It’s rarely used. Your use of “-ism” is polemic. Remember, the title was, “What Do Most Christians Really Believe About Evolution?” not what they believe about Darwin.

“I’ve never attempted to deceive anyone in this forum about anything. Your accusation regarding my motives is groundless.”

I notice with glee that you didn’t attempt to explain the prefix “classical neo-” though. See the next comment…

“The probable cause is that so many people who write on these blog sites have strong prior motivations, often affecting their judgment and their debating tactics, that you have become cynical and cannot recognize someone who is actually being honest and open when you meet him.”

Rich, your every rhetorical move is predictable.

“Your excuse for chopping off my quotation is unacceptable. At least some people would not have read the full quotation; and in any case, it’s irresponsible to make them look for it, in order to see how misleading your application was.”

In what way was it misleading, Rich? Provide details.
John - #22267

July 17^th 2010

“The verdict is still academic dishonesty. Didn’t they teach you how to quote in the science program you went through at—where was it again?”

Scientists *cite data* from others. This is yet another way in which the ID movement, and you, are dishonest and misleading.

“I’m uninterested in cheap exercises in labelling conducted by armchair bloggers with no scientific accomplishments to their credit.”

Like Stephen Meyer?

“The question is whether Behe’s arguments can pass scientific muster.”

Full-blown deception ahoy…

“If John thinks he can disprove Behe’s overall argument, before an audience of competent judges …”

You’re trying to deceive your audience. Science is about evidence and testing hypotheses, not arguing before judges in a high-school debate.

”...(which is not here, as only a small portion of the people who comment here have advanced scientific training),…”

How would you know, Rich?

”… Let him stand in the ring for 15 rounds with Behe.”

Now boxing? You’re precious, Rich—anything but evidence!

“I won’t waste time responding to his biting attacks on me until he has done so.”

I’m attacking your deceptive writing, Rich, not you.
John - #22268

July 17^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“Papalinton:

What are your qualifications in science, the history science, the philosophy of science, or the sociology of science to make that determination? If they are like those of most other Behe-bashers here, they are zero.”

Rich, do you really believe that? If so, how much are you willing to bet?
Joel Martin - #22273

July 17^th 2010

Hi everyone,

I’m about to sign off for the weekend, but I do have a request. Some of the comments have gotten away from the topic of my short essay and are instead more along the lines of personal attacks and the responses to those attacks. Granted, this can be a heated topic, and I appreciate your passion, but I think the thread is losing focus.

Let’s try to keep the comments related to either the book itself (for those of you who have read it) or the blog in question (which is based, to some extent, on a chapter in the book), OK? Otherwise, I cannot see how the conversation will remain of much interest to readers other than the primary combatants.

Peace,

Joel Martin
HornSpiel - #22276

July 18^th 2010

Rich,
Thanks for your explanation. So are you saying that ID is compatible with science that allows the possibility of some sort of theistic causation and is only incompatible with completely naturalistic science?

I am curious. You mention ” Is life the manifestation of a Platonic intelligence that brings about biological form along certain lines? ” I recently heard a Christian philosophy paper read that talked about the concept of Aristotelian science that has 4 causes or ways of describing something:
1) what it is
2) what it is made of
3) how it was made, and
4) what its purpose is.
Modern materialistic science initiated by Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle, drops 1) and 4). Science , it is argued, needs to go back to including the two causes dropped .
Is this what is meant by ID theorists when they say

In fact, it is ID that is preserving an old idea and arguing against a new idea, namely the proposition that design is an “illusion.”?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#ovrthrsci
Rich - #22279

July 18^th 2010

John:

Most of your remarks are scrappy, belligerent, motive-mongering, and off-topic, so I won’t answer them, or anything further that you write. However, I will correct one egregious error which you keep repeating about neo-Darwinism.

You say that the term is rarely used.

Google pulls up 130,000 hits.

Following the links on the first page alone, I found a lecture in which the term is prominently used by Richard Dawkins, and essay in which the term is prominently used by Stephen Jay Gould, and a quotation in which the term is defined by Lynn Margulis. On the same page I also found definitions of the term in the Britannica Online Encyclopedia and in that other popular online encyclopedia (famous for its hatred of ID and creationism).

John, there is a time to say, “I was utterly wrong, and I now stand corrected”. That time is now.
Rich - #22280

July 18^th 2010

Hornspiel:

ID is compatible even with a completely naturalistic science. Both Denton and Sternberg, who are are what might be called small-id proponents, appear to believe that evolution is the unfolding, without divine intervention and through entirely natural means, of formal mathematical structures. MIchael Behe also grants that such a version of ID is theoretically possible.

My reference to Platonism had Denton and Sternberg in mind.

As for your reference to the four Aristotelian causes (formal, material, efficient, and final), it is indeed true that modern science dropped this scheme, and repudiated final cause in particular, so that science suffered a great narrowing as a result. This narrowing made science much more powerful in terms of the prediction and control of nature, but much less full and much less rational than it had previously been. The cost was the abdication of explanation of many of the most important features of nature. Thus, any objective explanation of life *must* contain final causation, yet final causation is ruled out by modern science. Modern science thus truncates living reality in order to fit that reality within its paradigm.
Rich - #22282

July 18^th 2010

Joel Martin:

I agree that the thread has been pulled off-topic. One of the problems on all Biologos threads is that, while there are three groups of people (YEC, ID and TE/EC) who gather here because they are genuinely interested in religion/science questions and wish to explore them together, there is a fourth group of atheistic, materialistic Darwinists, consisting of about half a dozen people, which posts frequently; and these people, no matter what the topic is, pounce aggressively on any commenter who appears supportive of ID, even if that person is not promoting ID, but merely describing it to answer someone else’s question. They thus rapidly turn every thread into an ID vs. Darwinism battle. This is understandable as, having no belief in God, they assume that religion/science questions are pointless, and regard Biologos as just another forum where they can promote Darwin and hammer ID. I wish there were some way of filtering these people out, because they are preventing the threads from achieving their full potential.

On several threads, I have asked these people what their approach to religion is, and have been met with stony silence, which pretty well confirms my analysis.
Gregory - #22286

July 18^th 2010

Hey Rich, don’t worry, there’s other groups here too, even if of a few or one. I’m a non-YEC, neo-ID, post-TE/EC, non-atheist (or as you like to say, ‘materialist Darwinist,’ most of which are atheists), who believes there is a better way to discuss origins & changes than what is now present in ‘design,’ ‘creation’ OR ‘evolution’ when addressed as ideas, *not* as facts.

‘Creation’ as an idea - now that is a wow! even for BioLogos!

& yes, we can discuss ‘designism,’ ‘creationism’ &/or ‘evolutionism.’ Is it a surprise that those who would protect &/or promote one of the three terms - design, creation OR evolution - least like to discuss the -ism (ideology) it potentially turns into? Evolutionism!#$

To Joel, I’ll respond further to your #22259, but I wonder now two things:
First, what is your answer to my #22163 - can/should a “Christian Explain Why Evolution-ISM is not a Threat”? The ? was not if you discussed ‘-ism’ in your book.

Second, do you define ‘Darwinism’ or ‘neo-Darwinism’ in your book?

Heads-up: You’re conversing with someone who is more aware, educated & experienced than most on the topic of ‘ideology.’

p.s. re: quotes, the Episcopalians go too far as usual in their eVo embrace.
Gregory - #22289

July 18^th 2010

“Two suppositions only are open to us; the one that the feeling which responds to religious ideas resulted, along with all other human faculties, from an act of special creation; the other that it, in common with the rest, arose by a process of evolution.” – Herbert Spencer (First Principles, 1862)

Is there space for middle ground?
Gregory - #22290

July 18^th 2010

“I (and many others) avoid words such as Darwinism, evolutionism, etc. Those words simply serve no real purpose today, and there are several published articles explaining why they are anachronisms that should be avoided.” - Dr. Joel Martin

So you really don’t want to talk about ideology at *all* then? Dr. Martin that would be shallow, wouldn’t it? There would be ‘no real purpose’ to it, would there?

So, you really do want to disqualify my vocabulary because you think your vocabulary is better than mine? Sorry, I won’t have it. Don’t be so scared of -isms, Dr. of biology!

Maybe the truth is that you really don’t know what ‘evolutionism’ actually *is* and therefore want to avoid discussing it. Is there any truth in that? Epistemology and ontology, yes they are.

Interpretation. 20 grants from the NSF and at the same time little understanding of what distinguishes ‘ideology’ from ‘scientific theory.’ Or am I wrong here, Joel?
John - #22327

July 18^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“However, I will correct one egregious error which you keep repeating about neo-Darwinism.”

More deception from you…

“You say that the term is rarely used.”

You left out the context in your attempt to deceive.

It was in response to your statement, “You apparently know little about evolutionary theory, Neo-Darwin*ism*, with the suffix, has been used for years, by many evolutionary biologists, as a non-political self-description.”

I replied, “It’s rarely used.”

We both know that it is used all the time by polemicists like you.

“Google pulls up 130,000 hits.”

That’s nice, as t is used all the time by polemicists like you. Wouldn’t PubMed be a more relevant place to search? What’s the ratio of hits for “Darwinism” vs “natural selection”?

“Following the links on the first page alone, I found a lecture in which the term is prominently used by Richard Dawkins, and essay in which the term is prominently used by Stephen Jay Gould, and a quotation in which the term is defined by Lynn Margulis.”

So you found three, consistent with rare usage. The vast majority of those Google hits are from evolution denialists, demonstrating clear intent to deceive.
John - #22328

July 18^th 2010

Rich wrote:
1) “I’ve never attempted to deceive anyone in this forum about anything.”

2) “What are your qualifications in science, the history science, the philosophy of science, or the sociology of science to make that determination? If they are like those of most other Behe-bashers here, they are zero.”

Rich, you clearly were attempting to deceive in #2. You don’t believe that for a second. If you disagree, how much are you willing to bet that I have zero qualifications in science?

Joel,

My apologies. Back to your excellent post, I think it’s important to realize that most Christian denialism about evolution is based on an active, deliberate disinformation campaign that shows a complete disregard for the Ninth Commandment.

The evidence that it is deliberate is unequivocal, as no one in the IDC movement, even those who have done real science before, has sufficient faith to put an ID or creation hypothesis to an empirical test.

That lack of faith is why they deliberately misrepresent the scientific method as high-school debate. Rich’s escalation of this to a boxing metaphor is even more revealing.
HornSpiel - #22336

July 18^th 2010

Rich in your comment above you say any objective explanation of life must contain final causation, yet final causation is ruled out by modern science. So are you limiting final causation as necessary to explanations of life? Or does it apply to other realms of natural science (chemistry, physics, etc.)?

Also I am having a hard time understanding what explanatory advantage ID has if it is compatible with completely naturalistic evolutionary theory à la Denton and Sternberg. And if it is, why is there such a rift between BioLogos and DI?
Rich - #22337

July 18^th 2010

HornSpiel:

I’m neither affirming nor denying that final causality is an appropriate conception in the study of nature which does not concern life. I’m affirming that it’s inevitable in the study of life. And I’m not speaking initially of origins; I’m speaking of the end-directed character of life processes, which biologists must deal with even when they aren’t talking of origins.

The difference between Denton and Darwin-Sagan is this: in Darwin-Sagan, molecules become man essentially [allowing for all due academic qualifications] by chance; in Denton, molecules become man essentially by design. Those ID people who are attracted to Denton believe that the difference is detectable, not merely in, say, something like a bacterial flagellum, but at many, many points. They may be right or wrong about that, but they do posit a detectable difference.

As to why there is such a rift between Biologos and DI (did you mean ID?), you will have to ask the principals. I’ve pointed out erroneous statements about ID (e.g., that it requires supernatural intervention); the corrected impression should reduce friction and promote dialogue. But you can see that many commenters angrily brush my corrections aside.
Argon - #22338

July 18^th 2010

Rich - #22280: “ID is compatible even with a completely naturalistic science.”

In which case it’s a distinction without a difference.

Dembski: “Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.” -What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design, Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2): 1-8, 1995

I realize that Dembski doesn’t hold a patent in ID but his is far from the minority opinion among ID proponents. Even Phil Johnson called for a theistic version of science.
Rich - #22343

July 18^th 2010

Argon:

I am aware that Dembski has made a great many statements in his time. However, note that Dembski says elsewhere, in *No Free Lunch*, that design is compatible with a wholly naturalistic mode of manifestation. (Whether he actually thinks that things happened that way is another matter; I’m speaking of the principle here.)

I’ve read none of Phil Johnson’s books, and have not relied on any of his statements for the definition of ID.

In any case, I’m trying to abstract the most intellectually coherent form of ID from the statements of its various science-trained proponents. The most intellectually coherent form of ID is that it is about design detection, an information science rather than an origins science in the narrow sense. Or, if it is an origins science, the word “origin” should be thought of more in the way of Aristotle’s “causes”. Intelligence is a necessary *explanatory factor* for the integrated complexity of life; that, to me, is the essence of the ID position. The synthesis of Darwin and Sagan, on the other hand, says that intelligence is not necessary as an explanatory factor.

Why don’t you tell Denton that *Nature’s Destiny* is 400 pages maintaining a distinction without a difference?
John - #22351

July 18^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“In any case, I’m trying to abstract the most intellectually coherent form of ID from the statements of its various science-trained proponents.”

If it has anything to do with science, would abstraction from statements even be necessary?

“The most intellectually coherent form of ID is that it is about design detection, an information science rather than an origins science in the narrow sense.”

If it was information science, or any sort of science at all, its advocates would be actively testing hypotheses instead of writing books aimed at laypeople.

Heck, Rich, you’re on the verge of becoming the one with the highest h-index in the entire IDC movement, and you can’t be bothered to test an ID hypothesis, right?

“Why don’t you tell Denton that *Nature’s Destiny* is 400 pages maintaining a distinction without a difference?”

Only if I get to do it in a boxing ring. Don’t you think he’s been told that many times already?
Joel Maritn - #22352

July 18^th 2010

Hi guys,

I’m back in the mix, for a few minutes, at least.

Rich—it’s of no real benefit to try to lump the users of this blog site into a few categories and then single out one group as if they have no right to comment. They do. And not all people who adamantly oppose the ID movement are people without faith.

Gregory - to answer your question: Yes, you are wrong. But thanks for contributing. Your vocabulary is not being disqualified; chill out, and stop tossing down imaginary gauntlets.

John—Thanks, and I agree. The intentional dissemination of erroneous information and deliberate misleading are part and parcel of the anti-intellectualism that includes the anti-evolution movement.

All for now, and thanks again to all of you.

Joel Martin
Joel Martin - #22353

July 18^th 2010

Oh, and to Argon:

I’m finally responding to one of your earliest comments:

Thanks!

I’d much prefer working to come up with a consensus on beer! Maybe one of these days…

Thanks for keeping it light and fun,

Joel Martin
Rich - #22355

July 18^th 2010

Joel:

You misread my post. I didn’t say that certain people had no right to comment. I said that certain people have taken many threads on Biologos and turned them into an ID-Darwinism debate. If Biologos doesn’t mind these digressions, that’s fine. But you had mentioned that people were going off-topic, as if that was a bad thing. I was explaining one of the causes.

But speaking of comments that *were* on topic, I don’t believe you responded either to MIke Gene or myself when we indicated that you were misreading the statistics. It would certainly count as “dissemination of erroneous information” to leave people with the impression that the spirituality or religiousness indicated in the poll in question was conventional or orthodox Christianity.
Gregory - #22356

July 18^th 2010

Hi Joel,

I’m up for working toward consensus on beer too. : ) But sorry, Joel, “light and fun” isn’t going to cut it if you want to be perceived as a serious scholar with a contribution to make on this topic.

Hint: Look bigger than biology.

You wrote to me a falsity: “to answer your question.” No, you *still* have not answered my question about your subtitle: “Can/should a “Christian Explain Why Evolution-ISM is not a Threat”?

If you want it framed another way: is it possible and reasonable to see ‘evolutionism’ (and *not* ‘evolution’) as a threat to Christianity?

You seem to be pretending as if ‘evolutionism’ doesn’t exist. You’ve mentioned ‘Darwinism’ as “some sort of dangerous philosophy or mindset.” But what will you say with regard to ‘evolutionism’ & its potential dangers? Or are there none?

Otoh you are preaching ‘evolution’ & otoh not condemning ‘evolutionism.’ Is this correct?

There are no free points here just for being an author, Joel. Thanks for contributing too! You’ll have to earn your respect or lack of respect, as does everyone else.

So far, you have failed to answer a relatively simple question about ‘evolutionism,’ Joel. Why?
Joel Martin - #22376

July 19^th 2010

Hi guys,

This will be my last post on this topic, as I’m off to do other things. I’m glad that my article was the source of some discussions and comments, and I do hope you’ll look into the book itself, as many of the questions raised here are answered there.

Couple of quick comments:

Rich - you’re right, I did not yet answer your (and Mike Gene’s) good question on the discrepancy in the figures (Leshner’s and Rosenhouse’s interpretations of the Ecklund survey), and I’m looking into that now. I can see where Jason’s numbers came from, but not where Alan Leshner’s figure of roughly half of the 1,700 scientists surveyed being religious came from. I have the survey (her book) in front of me now, and will take a closer look at that, and maybe contact Alan about it too.

Gregory - “evolutionism” is simply a very poor word, defined and used vaguely, and differently, by many different groups. It’s not in all dictionaries, but the Wikipedia entry will give you some idea of why it’s not used by scientists. Writers strive for clarity (not always successfully, I admit), and so they avoid words of dubious and inconsistent meaning. And that one seems to me just an unnecessary muddle.

Continuing below…
Joel Martin - #22378

July 19^th 2010

Continuing…

Perhaps if you had defined your use of it initially, we all would have known exactly what you were talking about. Here’s part of the Wikepedia entry (and granted, that’s not the ultimate authority on definitions):

In the modern scientific community, the term is considered an anachronism and redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, and so it is not used. To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis “evolutionists” and the theory itself as “evolutionism.” Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.”

As you can see, not a widely accepted and used word, and for good reason.

Continued below . . .
Joel Martin - #22381

July 19^th 2010

And finally (I promise):

You’re quite wrong about keeping it light and fun. In fact, it’s the only way to go. You are free to suggest that I am not a serious scholar because of that—but you’ll have your work cut out for you trying to prove that one. Good scholarship and fun often go together quite nicely. I realize that might not have been your experience, and if not, that’s truly a shame. But it is light, and it is fun, and we can do excellent research and enjoy extremely productive careers with beers in hand and exuding good attitudes, I promise.

And did I mention that you might want to read the book?

Thanks once again to all of you for an interesting discussion. I hope to post another article later in the summer or early fall, and I will look forward to hearing from you again at that time.

Best wishes,

Joel Martin
Gregory - #22383

July 19^th 2010

Joel,

Trying to respect, brother…

Sorry, but you’ve lost my intellectual respect by saying “‘evolutionism’ is simply a very poor word.”

You demonstrate no qualification to write a book about ‘evolution’ *unless* all you are interested in is the natural-physical world. I find people so narrowly focussed ultimately quite boring to speak with. Rest assured, I will not waste any more time thinking about your book, though I no doubt believe that you had the best intentions in writing it.

Don’t worry, most biologists have little clue about what is *most* important for the everyday person on the street, including evangelical Christians, on this topic.

Please don’t patronize me with ‘Wiki’ of all things. It just lowers your quality.

“To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views.” - Joel

Is this meant to be humourous? You’re kidding, right?! Or, do you just mean ‘natural-physical scientists’ & not *all* scientists? Yada…

You are obviously not in touch with ‘world science’ today because ‘evolution’ is a highly contentious issue in several sciences. Do you accept evolutionary psychology too, Joel? Sociobiology? It sure sounds like you do. This is a sad state of affairs.
Gregory - #22386

July 19^th 2010

John wrote:
“Using the suffix “-ism” was purely political and polemic on your part.”

Honestly, this must be a mistake. You can’t be seriously suggesting that all -isms are as you say. Do you know much about ideology, John, and what it means in various forms?

Are people who visit BioLogos actually thinking that evolution-ism, Darwin-ism, capital-ism, constructiv-ism, pragmat-ism, etc. are *just* terms used for politics and polemics? If so, you are in dire need of education that many parts of the world already have. “Under-developed philosophically” is what such as statement as the above suggests.

What do they teach in United States of America these days about History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science? Next to nothing, so it seems.

p.s. then what would BioLogosism or BioLogism mean?
Robert Byers - #22390

July 19^th 2010

John.
Yes the bible is literal.
Yes if a passage is prefaced by saying its just a parable then its a special case of not literal.
Otherwise the word of gOd is honest and accurate. Its people who need to be held to like standard.
Robert Byers - #22391

July 19^th 2010

Ken Wolgemuth.
Well there have been great stratas of creationist work on a young earth.
If you mmean in the small circles of people paid to study these things well thats why creationism exists. They are not getting it right.
It comes down to the merits of the case.
Name a study that old earth advocates have ever done that made a case for a old earth?
A actual study and not just adding in speculation to actual geology work.
By the way it should be about geology and not physics or chemistry.
practical earth material one can put a shovel into.

Can you name anything in petroleum ideas that ever gained from a old earth concept in geology or anything that couldn’t be explained by a young earh hypothesis.
I bet you can’t.
penman - #22397

July 19^th 2010

Me: <<Change “evolutionism” to evolution (i.e. the scientific theory)>>

Eddy: <<It doesn’t make the difference. By the way, evolutionists would be mad at you calling a “fact” a theory.>>

“Evolutionism” is a term often used for an all-embracing philosophy, whereas “evolution” is a theory explaining biodiversity by common descent with modification, plus natural selection as primary mechanism of change.

Your fact-theory distinction is wrong. When I call evolution a theory, I’m using it in the scientific sense, not to dispute its factual status (“only a theory”), but to accord it a top-rank status as an explanation - there’s nothing higher in science. So why would a scientist be mad at me for calling evolution a theory?

Go to Answers in Genesis, & “arguments-we-dont-use” - one of the arguments they say Creationists should avoid is that “evolution is only a theory”, for the reason I just outlined.

<<if you found evolutionism convincing you wouldn’t be finding it hard to reject Adam and Eve.>>

Why not? Many theistic evolutionists see a place for an Adam in their theology. I doubt whether science has anything to say about him. But science isn’t the only route to knowledge.
Argon - #22413

July 19^th 2010

Rich - #22343: “I am aware that Dembski has made a great many statements in his time. However, note that Dembski says elsewhere, in *No Free Lunch*, that design is compatible with a wholly naturalistic mode of manifestation. (Whether he actually thinks that things happened that way is another matter; I’m speaking of the principle here.)”

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they’re not. Dembski says different things to different audiences.

...“In any case, I’m trying to abstract the most intellectually coherent form of ID from the statements of its various science-trained proponents.”

That would perhaps make you the first to try that as there hasn’t been much attempt at a synthesis of ID within the movement. Well, maybe after Mike Gene who’s probably had the most success so far.

...“Why don’t you tell Denton that *Nature’s Destiny* is 400 pages maintaining a distinction without a difference?

Having considered Denton’s arguments, I believe that the non-wrong parts of his thesis are not really distinguishable, despite his claims to the contrary. Maybe this is true for most forms of Deism.

Argon - #22414

July 19^th 2010

Argh.. needed to close the italics code
That should to it…
John - #22416

July 19^th 2010

Robert Byers,

If everything is literal unless properly prefaced, please explain Job 4:21:

“Are not the cords of their tent pulled up, so that they die without wisdom?”

Be sure to explain why this metaphor was not left in many translations.

Thanks in advance.
Rich - #22465

July 19^th 2010

Argon:

Yes, I’m working in the spirit of Mike Gene, though from a different perspective theologically, and with less deference to neo-Darwinism (which he oddly supports, despite his slashing criticism, recorded here on Biologos, of many aspects of it).

I don’t see why “design” and “evolution” are incompatible, and it’s simply wrong, from a logical point of view, to treat them as contraries. Of course, one can define “evolution” to exclude the possibility of design, but the word in itself does not imply this, and indeed, before Darwin, had teleological rather than anti-teleological connotations (which is why Darwin avoided it in his early writings—see Gilson’s book on Darwin for the details).

I’m constantly suggesting that open-to-design-detection TEs and open-to-macroevolution IDers sign terms of peace, and exchange ideas and insights fraternally. My formulation of ID facilitates such peaceful exchange. But a number of Darwinians, both TE and atheist, seem determined to prevent even the hearing of any reasonable formulation of ID; they want ID to be read as miracle-mongering anti-science, so that it can easily be put down. So I’m fighting against powerful prejudice, as is Mike Gene. I sympathize with him.
John - #22473

July 19^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“I’m constantly suggesting that open-to-design-detection TEs and open-to-macroevolution IDers sign terms of peace, and exchange ideas and insights fraternally.”

No signing is necessary, Rich, just produce some data from testing an ID hypothesis.

You won’t because you lack faith.

“My formulation of ID facilitates such peaceful exchange.”

But you’re not producing any data.

“But a number of Darwinians, both TE and atheist, seem determined to prevent even the hearing of any reasonable formulation of ID; they want ID to be read as miracle-mongering anti-science, so that it can easily be put down.”

It’s easily put down because its adherents lack sufficient faith to go into the lab or the field to test ID hypotheses.

“So I’m fighting against powerful prejudice, as is Mike Gene. I sympathize with him.”

It’s not wrong to be prejudiced against those who claim to be doing science but are unwilling to empiricially test their own hypotheses. You can’t even think of a single, feasible experiment for us to do that would help to distinguish between your hypothesis and ours, can you?

Because then we’ll do it, and you’re afraid of the consequences.
Gregory - #22481

July 19^th 2010

Sorry John, not worth commenting on your ‘lack of faith’ posts to Rich. He is quite relevant and unique in this conversation due to his seeking ‘peaceful exchange.’

Indeed, Rich, this is the most forthcoming message (#22465) that I’ve read from you in a couple of years.

“I don’t see why “design” and “evolution” are incompatible” - Rich

O.k. then, let’s do a thought experiment. You are fixing a car, Rich. Your car needs a new carburator. You call & order a new carburator, since you want to do the work yourself. You successfully install it; car is back in working condition. Happy Rich!

Questions: Were you the designer/fixer of your car by installing the new carburator? Yes. Did the new carburator in any sense ‘evolve’ into being installed in your car? If not, then you can see how ‘design’ & ‘evolve’ are incompatible.

As you may notice, Rich, I have not defined ‘evolution’ naively to mean ‘not design,’ as many IDists do. There is no need to do this & I find it philosophically-linguistically distorting to do so.

‘Open-to-design-detection’ - fine in HSS, absurd in NPS.

Teleology in HSS, no problem! But the DI doesn’t want (& neither does BioLogos) to go there. Go figure…
John - #22497

July 19^th 2010

Gregory wrote:
“Sorry John, not worth commenting on your ‘lack of faith’ posts to Rich. He is quite relevant and unique in this conversation due to his seeking ‘peaceful exchange.’”

That’s precisely what I’d expect—anything but a stringent empirical test of any IDC hypothesis.

”...O.k. then, let’s do a thought experiment.”

Anything but a real, live experiment…

If my hypothesis of lack of faith is not worth commenting on, why can it predict evasive behavior so accurately?
R Hampton - #22513

July 19^th 2010

But a number of Darwinians, both TE and atheist, seem determined to prevent even the hearing of any reasonable formulation of ID; they want ID to be read as miracle-mongering anti-science, so that it can easily be put down

Stephen Barr, Sean Carroll, Wesley Elsberry, Darrel Falk, Gert Korthof, Steve Matheson, Mark Perakh, Jeffrey Shallit, and Richard Wein are just some of those who have made specific critiques of Behe, Demsbki, and Meyer regarding errors they made in science and math. Until ID researchers have a better understanding of information theory and statistics, and hence build better theories, their work can not be taken seriously.
Rich - #22517

July 19^th 2010

R Hampton:

Your response is a *non sequitur*.

My remarks referred to the misrepresentation of ID’s claims and motives.

Your response discusses alleged flaws in ID arguments but does not address the misrepresentation question, which is what my complaint was about.

By the way, a good number of the people you named have *no* special competence in “information theory and statistics”. Dembski does. And yourself? You studied those subjects to Dembski’s level at which institutions?
Mike - #22523

July 19^th 2010

Rich,

Could you briefly explain your views on creation? I am not a scientist and can’t quite understand what your exact views are. Do you believe in common descent or something else? I am not thoroughly understanding your take on the ID position and how it exactly differs from evolution. This is by no means a personal jab or anything, I am just sincerely trying to understand what makes you different from a TE. Any clarification would be great, thanks!
John - #22531

July 19^th 2010

Rich tried to obfuscate:
“By the way, a good number of the people you named have *no* special competence in “information theory and statistics”.”

By the way, a good number of them do.

“Dembski does.”

Dembski has no experience in applying information theory or statistics to a real-world biological system. He is afraid to do so. He has no faith.

“And yourself? You studied those subjects to Dembski’s level at which institutions?”

I’ve applied statistics to actual data from actual experiments and published the results in the primary scientific literature.

Dembski has never published anything in the primary scientific literature and never will.
R Hampton - #22533

July 19^th 2010

Rich,

When ID researchers fail to understand the theories they wish to build atop and then characterize their critics as you did, then that is a misrepresentation. Case in point, Sean Devine - who does have “special competence” (certainly more than Dembski) and has written several papers on Algorithmic Information Theory - posted this paper on arxiv last year:

[url=“http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0399”]An Algorithmic Information Theory Critique of Statistical Arguments for Intelligent Design<>, 2009

In contrast to the Dembski approach, the common mathematical understanding of Algorithmic Information Theory is that those outcomes that have high D-information exhibit low algorithmic complexity, low algorithmic entropy and low algorithmic information…

This paper makes three main points. The first point, is that as Elsberry and his colleague Shallit have suggested [<a href=“http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf”>Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and
Dembski’s \Complex Speci¯ed Information”[/url], 2003], Kolmogorov’s deficiency in randomness provides a far more satisfactory measure for D-information than that proposed by Dembski…
continued
R Hampton - #22534

July 19^th 2010

(cont.)
The second point is that, as the Dembski’s approach does not adequately define a randomness test that can be implemented in practice, it should be replaced by the agreed mathematical measure of randomness known as a universal Martin Lof randomness test…

This paper’s third point is that Dembski’s 4th law of thermodynamics, i.e. his law of conservation of the information I(D), is unnecessary. It contains no more than the second law of thermodynamics and is equivalent to the unsurprising statement that in a closed system entropy can only be conserved or increase…
Rich - #22535

July 19^th 2010

Mike:

I’ve explained myself in detail on so many threads, I’m exhausted. But from this thread alone you can deduce my position: ID and theistic evolution don’t *need* to be in conflict. *Some* forms of ID conflict with *some* forms of theistic evolution. What is called TE is generally a Protestant form of theistic evolution that is heavily invested in certain opinions about theodicy, about God acting through exclusively natural means in creation, about God not wanting his design to be detectable scientifically to leave room for faith, about the adequacy of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to produce novel body plans, etc. That form of TE is in conflict with ID. But a more generic theistic evolutionism, which says nothing more than the minimum—“I believe in God, and I believe that God created by means of an evolutionary process, possibly entirely natural, possibly tweaked here and there, but in any case planned and designed to achieve certain outcomes”—many ID proponents could affirm that. Behe affirms that. And Denton affirms something like that, though his meaning of “God” may not be Behe’s. But such affirmations are not enough to satisfy certain members of the TE community. I suggest that you ask them why.
Rich - #22536

July 19^th 2010

R Hampton:

You’re wasting your breath. Your original reply was a non sequitur which didn’t answer my concern. I told you that, but you are continuing on the same line, a line which I made no commitment to pursue with you. I’m not interested in engaging with your secondhand understanding of Elsberry and Shallit. If I want to read their paper I’ll do it myself. You have already shown me that you are willing to quote long blocks of Aquinas without an accurate understanding of their contents, and I have no reason to assume that anything you relate about Elsberry and Shallit will be any different.
Gravedigger - #22552

July 20^th 2010

Late response to Mr. Gregory:

Pretty clear to me that Dr. Martin’s quote (the one you put in bold) was part of the Wikipedia account, not his own words. It’s easy to check (I just did). You should read more carefully, I think. But he did leave off the opening quotation marks, so I can understand your mistake. Still, you boneheaded that one in a large way.

My reading of it is that he has tried, pretty nicely, to let you down easy with your misunderstanding of the words you are trying to use. You lost that round, and embarassed yourself in the process.

Dude, did you really mean to question his understanding of “world science”? (whatever you meant by that!) Not wise. This guy worked for the National Science Foundation and is a major player. You should check it out. I did.

BTW, do you have qualifications of any sort? just curious. You write as though you think you should, and want to convince others that you do, yet your writing is bad enough that it seems you could not possibly. True?
Gregory - #22563

July 20^th 2010

Was I just called ‘dude’ by someone?!

Well, I guess we’ve all got bones in our head, at least sometimes.

Read the thread again. #22163 I asked a question to Dr. Joel Martin about the subtitle of his book. Would he say the same thing if the word ‘evolutionism’ was substituted for ‘evolution’?

He could give a very simple answer or no answer. “Evolutionism *is* a threat,” he could have agreed. He chose not to, instead saying he discussed the use of -isms in his book. But that doesn’t address the question does it?

Why? B/c to admit ‘evolutionism’ is a threat compromises his book!

As for misattributing a quote to Joel, I admit my guilt. I realized soon after that “To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views” were not Joel’s silly words. I should have posted this realization immediately, thus to avoid such a dude-U’ve-misunderstood barb.

Joel Martin did write (repeat quote): “‘evolutionism’ is simply a very poor word.” This disqualifies him as a competent thinker on this topic for me, age & position aside.

Yes, I probably have more academic degrees than only a few at BioLogos & I’ve also published on ‘evolutionism’ in the human-social sciences. What about you Gravedigger?
Gravedigger - #22571

July 20^th 2010

No, I’ve got nothin.

But here’s why I think he (Martin) was right, and you were wrong: Evolutionism has been defined as:

* the biological concept of evolution
* a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves, and that changes are progressive
* cultural / social evolution
* acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis
* to cover a world-view on a wide variety of topics, including chemical evolution, galaxy formation and evolution, stellar evolution, spiritual evolution, technological evolution and universal evolution, which seeks to explain every aspect of the world in which we live
* an anachronism / redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution
* creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis “evolutionists” and the theory itself as “evolutionism.”
(from my very limited search)

So, why use a word like that in a subtitle of a book that is mainly for teens? I think he’s right to use clearly defined, unambiguous words, and this isn’t one of them—not a good word, as he said. It adds to the mud, not the clarity.

sorry about the dude part—it wasn’t meant to be offensive or anything.
Argon - #22621

July 20^th 2010

Rich - #22465:
I don’t see why “design” and “evolution” are incompatible, and it’s simply wrong, from a logical point of view, to treat them as contraries.
...
But a number of Darwinians, both TE and atheist, seem determined to prevent even the hearing of any reasonable formulation of ID; they want ID to be read as miracle-mongering anti-science, so that it can easily be put down. So I’m fighting against powerful prejudice, as is Mike Gene. I sympathize with him.

ID does not have to be in conflict with neo-Darwinian or other natural (small-‘n’) mechanisms. And yet TE and natural mechanisms are an anathema to the leaders (& movers and shakers) associated with the Discovery Institute. They, along with Dawkins et al. have managed to cooperate in framing the debate in precisely that way. I’d say they’re co-dependent.

I recall years ago when members of the American Scientific Association (ASA - the nation’s largest organization of Chirstians in science) were in open dialog with people like Dembski. Alas, Bill had other ideas about how great his ideas were and was perhaps not the most level-headed person for the role.
Argon - #22625

July 20^th 2010

Bugger!
It’s the American Scientific Affiliation
Rich - #22626

July 20^th 2010

Argon:

I cannot speak of the past battles among American evangelicals over evolution and design. I wasn’t there. From what I have unearthed years later, however, extreme statements have been made on both the ID and TE sides, and it’s hard to recover trust once that happens.

I’ve repeatedly suggested something like “designed evolution” as a possible compromise between ID and TE, where a completely naturalistic mode of evolution is left open as a *possible* way of God’s working, but is not insisted upon as the *only* way God could have run things. This would leave room for subtle quantum interventions and possibly even big breaks, e.g., at the origin of life. If no one would dogmatize for or against “naturalism”, peace might be possible. But it seems that on the ID side some anti-naturalists have planted their feet, and on the TE side the naturalists have planted their feet, and it’s this rigidity that is the problem.

You see an affinity between ID and the atheists. I see an affinity between TE and the atheists, as they *always* gang up together against ID people (e.g., the tag-team attack against me here). And speaking of co-dependency, how about the relationship between TE and YEC?
R Hampton - #22631

July 20^th 2010

You have already shown me that you are willing to quote long blocks of Aquinas without an accurate understanding of their contents, and I have no reason to assume that anything you relate about Elsberry and Shallit will be any different.

To reiterate, the quotes I presented above were from Sean Devine’s An Algorithmic Information Theory Critique of Statistical Arguments for Intelligent Design, 2009 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0399). Elsbserry and Shallit are only cited in the paper.
John - #22648

July 20^th 2010

R. Hampton,

Rich only sees what he wants to see.

You write “codependency,” he sees “affinity.”

You cite some people who aren’t mathematicians, and he assumes that all of the people you cited aren’t mathematicians.

It’s simple and predictable.
Rich - #22649

July 20^th 2010

John:

“You cite some people who aren’t mathematicians, and he assumes that all of the people you cited aren’t mathematicians.”

I never made any assumption about “all”. Read what I wrote more carefully.

And you’ve mixed up R Hampton with Argon.
Gregory - #22669

July 20^th 2010

Hi Gravedigger,

No problem wrt the dude part – I wasn’t offended, just surprised. & I’m not American so the reference is kinda funny. Do I live near a beach in Cali (e.g. Los Angeles, J.M.) or Florida? No.

I am not a ‘creationist’ though I believe in creation & creativity. What are you, sir? & I didn’t ask Dr. Martin to use ‘evolutionism’ in the subtitle. I simply asked ‘what if’?

Since I hold more academic degrees than Dr. Joel Martin & am also a doctor, perhaps you will be willing to reconsider your views @ ‘right’ & ‘wrong’ on this topic.

Dr. Martin studies crustaceans. I study ideologies & the meaning of ‘science’ to people in societies. Who do you think is more qualified to speak @ ‘evolutionism’?!

Yet Dr. Martin just dismissed me as if he has knowledge from on-high, from natural-physical science. I laugh at this pompousness!

Joel wouldn’t even *speak* @ ‘evolutionism’ & Christianity, instead calling eVo-ism a ‘poor word,’ dismissing it as irrelevant. As a doctor, I think Joel Martin is irrelevant & possibly even damaging on this conversation because he is a ‘mere biologist’ or ‘zoologist’ who knows little @ the ‘meaning of science’ to people.

(cont’d)
Gregory - #22672

July 20^th 2010

Dr. Joel Martin has no training to express an educated opinion @ ‘evolutionism’ & thus is, understandably afraid to do it. What I have done, in this thread, is to call him out on this & he failed to provide anything helpful. Why do you defend him?

-ism is pejorative, & so…?

Look, Gravedigger, Dr. Martin has probably never read E. Durkheim (except if he took a Soc 100 course 30 years ago), doesn’t know who C. Levi-Strauss or F. Boas is, has little knowledge of the arguments between anthropologists about ‘evolutionism’ in the first quarter of the 20th century. Why should I afford *any* value to his views @ ideology or ‘evolutionism’ in particular? Just b/c he is a zoologist & studies crabs for a living?! B/c he accepts an ‘old Earth,’ as do I?

Books make money, if distributed well. Many folks, Christian & non-Christian have made pots of cash printing books @ ‘evolution’ & ‘creation’ in America. Should we trust & pay attention to someone who implicitly dismisses anthropology, sociology, psychology & other social sciences, by avoiding ‘evolutionism’ across the board as a ‘poor word’? Just to read yet another book by a natural-physical scientist-Christian who wants to change things in America?
Gregory - #22676

July 20^th 2010

(cont’d)

Seriously, Gravedigger, do you notice that BioLogos, just like Discovery Institute before it, is highly imbalanced wrt its representation in the Academy.

There are currently 59 blog authors in the archives. The only ones who have training in the human-social sciences are David Opderbeck (Law) & Mark Sprinkle (art history/American studies). The rest are biologists (heavy set), physicists, & geologists, along with Bible scholars, theologians & philosophers.

What’s missing in this picture?!

There are *no* anthropologists at BioLogos. NONE, zero, nada! & people are talking about human beings quite regularly. Anthropos - human beings! Why not invite 3 or 4 anthropologists, Christian evangelicals of course, to participate?

Why? Let me offer a reason. It is because BioLogos likely doesn’t want to confront the topic of ‘evolutionism’ & ‘neo-evolutionism’ in the Academy. Just like Joel Martin, they don’t want to admit that ‘evolutionism’ *IS* or *CAN BE* a THREAT to religious consciousness, Muslim, Christian or Jew. In this sense, they are far behind the ball because people are prepared to talk about this at a higher level than BioLogos realizes.

Do you support this, G.D.?
Gregory - #22677

July 20^th 2010

Sorry, forgot to mention the film director, who is probably more balanced and positively neutral than many natural-physical scientists on this topic! : )
John - #22679

July 20^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“I never made any assumption about “all”. Read what I wrote more carefully.”

R. Hampton wrote:
“Case in point, Sean Devine - who does have “special competence” (certainly more than Dembski) and has written several papers on Algorithmic Information Theory - posted this paper on arxiv last year: [url=“http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0399”]An Algorithmic Information Theory Critique of Statistical Arguments for Intelligent Design<>, 2009”

And you came back with, “I have no reason to assume that anything you relate about Elsberry and Shallit will be any different.”

So, Rich, is Sean Devine qualified by the criteria you set out?

We both know that authority only matters to you when you agree with it. It’s just a tool you use to deceive. What did Jesus say about hypocrisy?

“And you’ve mixed up R Hampton with Argon.”

It was a generic “you,” Rich.
Gregory - #22682

July 20^th 2010

Let me just go further with this because it is crucially important to what BioLogos can or may contribute in this conversation.

First, one anthropologist is worth 20+ biologists on this topic.

(And I am not an anthropologist, so please nobody think that I am simply promoting my own.)

Second, the most significant hindrance to more American evangelical Christians, i.e. the main target audience for BioLogos, accepting an ‘old Earth’ & the legitimacy of a limited evolutionary theory in biological sciences, is not actually *IN* biology itself.

No, the most significant hindrance is in areas such as anthropology, psychology, economics, semiotics & sociology. Why? Because ‘ultra-Darwinists’ (a term that BioLogos friend Simon Conway-Morris uses) have tried to convince people that ‘ethics evolve’ that ‘morals evolve’ & that the Creator-God is not the Source of their beliefs & motivation for action.

Overturn the human-social scientific *abuses* of ‘evolutionism’ & the topic will change dramatically, enough perhaps for evangelical Christians to re-consider it.

Continue with a biology-heavy defence of ‘evolution’ & the results will be much less significant.
Rich - #22690

July 20^th 2010

John:

Your latest reply is another *non sequitur*. You and R Hampton should get together.

Read the quotation from me again. Now explain to me how my denial that *some* people on a list are mathematical specialists has any bearing on what I think of the mathematical specialization of someone else *who was not even on the list*? I never undertook to evaluate the skills of Mr. Devine; I undertook to correct you for accusing me of saying “all” when I never did.

Do find it hard to admit even trivial errors? You accused me of lumping all the people on the original list together. I disproved that. The proper reply is “My mistake. You didn’t say all. Careless reading on my part.” Are admissions of error not in the Darwinian repertoire?
John - #22693

July 20^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“Read the quotation from me again. Now explain to me how my denial that *some* people on a list are mathematical specialists has any bearing on what I think of the mathematical specialization of someone else *who was not even on the list*? I never undertook to evaluate the skills of Mr. Devine;…”

Exactly. You ignore the qualifications of those who disagree with you, while you take great pains to brag about the credentials of those that do. That’s hypocrisy, something Jesus Christ said a lot about, unlike evolution.

“I undertook to correct you for accusing me of saying “all” when I never did.”

Now you’re in full fabrication mode. I accused you of ASSUMING all, not saying it.

Read what I wrote, Rich:
“You cite some people who aren’t mathematicians, and he assumes that all of the people you cited aren’t mathematicians.”

The proper reply is…?
John - #22696

July 20^th 2010

Gregory wrote to Joel:
“You demonstrate no qualification to write a book about ‘evolution’ *unless* all you are interested in is the natural-physical world. I find people so narrowly focussed ultimately quite boring to speak with.”

Pot…kettle…

Joel clearly isn’t as narrow as you claim he is, since he is posting here.

The reality is that evolutionary theory is converted into the minds of Christianists to a threat to their authoritarian political POV.

Reinforcing this tribalism is far more important to them than following the teachings of Jesus Christ (who taught against tribalism), as shown by the cynical campaign of deliberate lies they use to attack science.

At the same time, they pretend to be scientists while lacking the faith to test a single ID or creation hypothesis.

What did you think of Alan Sokal, Gregory?
R Hampton - #22697

July 20^th 2010

Rich,

In another thread, you seem to disagree with the argument that “</i>...David Berlinski, Michael Behe, Steve Meyer, etc. have no business talking about evolutionary biology, or criticizing neo-Darwinism, because it’s not their ‘field’, and they don’t have the skill to ‘interpret the data’. </i>”

But in this thread, your main argument against a list of ID critics that I presented was that “...a good number of the people you named have *no* special competence in ‘information theory and statistics.’”

I fail to see how you can resolve these two positions: that lacking the skill to interpret data outside one’s field is in any meaningful way different than lacking special competence in a given field.
Gravedigger - #22702

July 20^th 2010

Comment removed by moderator.
Rich - #22723

July 20^th 2010

John:

You’re trying to weasel out on a technicality. Fine, you didn’t say that I *said* the word “all”. But you did say that I *assumed* something about “all” the people named. You had no right to infer that I assumed “all”. You cannot read my mind. Further, for anyone with basic experience of English syntax, the assumption that I meant “all” would not make sense with the way I worded my sentence. The clear implication of my sentence was that *some* of the people R Hampton named were not specialists in the mathematical areas named.

By saying that I *assumed* that “all” of the named people were in that category, you imputed a position to me without warrant.

I did not say “all”, I did not imply “all”, I did not assume “all”. You charged me with implying or at least thinking something that I neither implied nor thought. I now await your admission of unwarranted imputation. But I’m not holding my breath. I have no historical precedent that the admission of error is within your capacity.
Rich - #22727

July 20^th 2010

R Hampton:

Nice try, but it’s a no go. *You* said:

“Until ID researchers have a better understanding of information theory and statistics, and hence build better theories, their work can not be taken seriously.”

Then you quoted a number of people, of whom you gave no proof whatsoever that they had a better understanding of information theory and statistics than ID people, and some of whom have much less formal training in those areas than some ID people. My point was that *by your own criteria* not all of those people were qualified to judge ID theories.

Those were *your* criteria, not mine. I’d prefer that all the formal qualifications were dropped, and that instead hiding behind the invulnerable wall of their specialties, and claiming no one is competent to criticize them, everyone would just put out their arguments and listen to all intelligent critics, no matter what their formal specialties. But Dr. Giberson rejects this. Thus, though I once saw Berlinski expose Eugenie Scott’s ignorance in an argument—she flew into a rage when he asked her a reasonable question she could not answer—Dr. Giberson would, it seems, say that Berlinski wasn’t qualified to criticize her position. I disagree.
John - #22730

July 20^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“You’re trying to weasel out on a technicality.”

Not even close.

“Fine, you didn’t say that I *said* the word “all”.”

Yet you self-righteously claimed I did.

“But you did say that I *assumed* something about “all” the people named.”

That’s the most charitable interpretation—that you made a mistake.

“You had no right to infer that I assumed “all”. You cannot read my mind. Further, for anyone with basic experience of English syntax, the assumption that I meant “all” would not make sense with the way I worded my sentence. The clear implication of my sentence was that *some* of the people R Hampton named were not specialists in the mathematical areas named.”

So clarify for me, Rich: when R Hampton wrote:
“Case in point, Sean Devine - who does have “special competence” (certainly more than Dembski) and has written several papers on Algorithmic Information Theory - posted this paper on arxiv last year: …”

…and you came back with:
“I have no reason to assume that anything you relate about Elsberry and Shallit will be any different.”

…what exactly was your point?
John - #22732

July 20^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“I’d prefer that all the formal qualifications were dropped, and that instead hiding behind the invulnerable wall of their specialties, and claiming no one is competent to criticize them, everyone would just put out their arguments and listen to all intelligent critics, no matter what their formal specialties.”

There you go again with your high-school debate hooey.

I’d prefer that all formal qualifications were dropped, and everyone would just put out their EVIDENCE. Then critics could suggest experiments that would distinguish between hypotheses.

Real scientific debates usually happen at meetings and end with agreement on which experiment is the most incisive. Then the debaters go home and do the experiment.

But you won’t produce any evidence, have no intention of producing any, and can’t even suggest a single feasible experiment that someone else could do.

You lack faith. That’s the only hypothesis that explains your behavior.
R Hampton - #22734

July 20^th 2010

Then you quoted a number of people, of whom you gave no proof whatsoever that they had a better understanding of information theory and statistics than ID people, and some of whom have much less formal training in those areas than some ID people.

Despite formal training, ID researchers have failed to properly understand information theory, especially Kolmogorov complexity. Given that you believe; everyone [sh]ould just put out their arguments and listen to all intelligent critics, no matter what their formal specialties you ought to read the criticisms before passing judgement. Since Sean Devine’s paper is most recent and discusses several flaws with ID, I suggest starting with it: An Algorithmic Information Theory Critique of Statistical Arguments for Intelligent Design, 2009
Rich - #22736

July 20^th 2010

John (22730):

Your comments are hopelessly confused, and continually evasive.

The quotation of R Hampton *I* have been referring to is this (22513):

“Stephen Barr, Sean Carroll, Wesley Elsberry, Darrel Falk, Gert Korthof, Steve Matheson, Mark Perakh, Jeffrey Shallit, and Richard Wein are just some of those who have made specific critiques of Behe, Demsbki, and Meyer regarding errors they made in science and math. Until ID researchers have a better understanding of information theory and statistics, and hence build better theories, their work can not be taken seriously.”

I replied (22517):

“By the way, a good number of the people you named have *no* special competence in “information theory and statistics”. Dembski does.”

To which you later chimed in (22648):

“You [R Hampton] cite some people who aren’t mathematicians, and he [Rich] assumes that all of the people you cited aren’t mathematicians.”

This was false. In 22517 I never said, implied, or assumed that *all* of the people cited by R Hampton weren’t mathematicians. You had *no* justification for the words “assumes” and “all”.

You made a false imputation. Own up to it.
Rich - #22739

July 20^th 2010

R Hampton:

It’s your personal opinion that ID proponents don’t understand Kolmogorov complexity. Dembski would appear to understand quite a bit about it, and deals with it at length in *No Free Lunch*. Perhaps, in the interests of objectivity, before you simply accept someone else’s opinion that Dembski is wrong, you should read Dembski’s account first. And then, after you have read both, ask yourself whether you have sufficient mathematical understanding to judge between the two of them. If you do, well and good; make your judgment. I have no problem with that. But if you don’t have that understanding, on what basis will you decide whose argument is better? On the basis that you don’t like Dembski’s conclusion, and you like the other guy’s? Myself, I’m finding it hard to believe how many hundreds of people I’ve met on the internet who claim to know Ph.D.- level mathematical arguments well enough to be sure that Dembski is wrong. Either there are a lot of unemployed mathematicians out there, frittering away countless hours per week attacking ID on the internet while they await academic job interviews, or there are a lot of bluffers.
John - #22740

July 20^th 2010

Rich,

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your reply to R Hampton was (caps mine),
“I’m not interested in engaging with your secondhand understanding of Elsberry and Shallit. If I want to read their paper I’ll do it myself.”

R Hampton clearly and unequivocally cited the paper from Sean Devine. He cited no paper from Elsberry and Shallit.

Did you make a mistake, or were you deliberately obfuscating because expertise doesn’t matter for those who don’t support your position?
Rich - #22747

July 20^th 2010

John:

As I suspected, you’ve completely mangled two different sub-threads, causing me to misread one of your criticisms and you to misread my defense of your criticism. I suspect that the word “assume” which figures in the two different sub-threads threw you off. But you should have been paying closer attention to the shifts.

Go back and read the numbers I specified. Then notice where Hampton branched off with what I called a *non sequitur*. It was *after* I told him that the first list of names was a non-sequitur and that I wouldn’t pursue it that he went on to talk about Devine, Elsberry and Shallit (which was another *non sequitur*). I made *no* comment about the mathematical background of Devine, Elsberry and Shallit. You *thought* I was making such a comment, because you mangled the sub-threads in your mind.

I did confuse Devine’s article with the reference by Elsberry and Shallit. That was a reading slip on my part. But I never said anything about the mathematical knowledge of any of those three men, and they were all irrelevant to my original point, which not about the correctness of ID but about its misformulation. I advise you read more slowly before reacting.
John - #22750

July 20^th 2010

Rich, you crack me up.

R Hampton put up 3 comments from the paper (the only paper he cited), to which you replied,

“I told you that, but you are continuing on the same line, a line which I made no commitment to pursue with you. I’m not interested in engaging with your secondhand understanding of Elsberry and Shallit. If I want to read their paper I’ll do it myself. You have already shown me that you are willing to quote long blocks of Aquinas without an accurate understanding of their contents, and I have no reason to assume that anything you relate about Elsberry and Shallit will be any different.”

You were unequivocally referring to those comments.

“I did confuse Devine’s article with the reference by Elsberry and Shallit. That was a reading slip on my part.”

And the resulting belligerence was very amusing.

“But I never said anything about the mathematical knowledge of any of those three men…”

Back to that, Rich? I never said you said anything. I said that you ASSUMED. That is the most charitable reading of what you wrote.

I’m perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong if you were deliberately conflating an expert with two nonexperts because R Hampton had called your bluff on authority.
John - #22751

July 20^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“It’s your personal opinion that ID proponents don’t understand Kolmogorov complexity.”

No, it’s the opinion of many mathematicians as well. That was R Hampton’s point in citing the paper that you dismissed as a “non sequitur.”

“Perhaps, in the interests of objectivity, before you simply accept someone else’s opinion that Dembski is wrong, you should read Dembski’s account first.”

Well, I don’t know about R Hampton, but I’ve read it and the math doesn’t even matter because the underlying assumptions he’s made about biology are simply false.

I also know that after fantasizing about getting his political enemies on the witness stand in court, he wimped out as a witness himself.

I also know that after the verdict went against him, he came up with a Flash animation in which the Republican judge made lots of fart noises.

“And then, after you have read both, ask yourself whether you have sufficient mathematical understanding to judge between the two of them.”

I don’t need to. I know his assumptions are wrong.

“But if you don’t have that understanding, on what basis will you decide whose argument is better?”

By which one successfully applies his hypothesis in the real world.
John - #22752

July 20^th 2010

Rich wrote:
“... Either there are a lot of unemployed mathematicians out there, frittering away countless hours per week attacking ID on the internet while they await academic job interviews, or there are a lot of bluffers.”

Hey, Rich, speaking of bluffers, 3 days ago you wrote:
“Papalinton:
What are your qualifications in science, the history science, the philosophy of science, or the sociology of science to make that determination? If they are like those of most other Behe-bashers here, they are zero.”

So how much are you willing to bet that mine are zero? I’m very confident that you made that claim with the intent to deceive, and that you have zero confidence that it is true.
Gregory - #22754

July 20^th 2010

John and Rich,

Well, John, I41 don’t think you have zero qualifications in science & I doubt if Rich thinks this either.

Btw, what field(s) do you have qualifications in? Rich has disclosed his qualifications here, but I don’t remember anywhere reading yours.

Hmm…I didn’t know that Dembski made a Flash animation after the Dover trial about the judge. Do you know if he made it himself or if someone else did? I’d heard about some of Dembski’s other strange behaviours; this just adds to it.

My question for Rich is: do you think a “mathematical theory of intelligent design” is possible?

After Dembski left Baylor (what a triumphalist ‘Waterloo’ comment!), if I recall he stated that he would dedicate the next few years to such a mathematical theory. But do you think it’s even possible or just hand-waving on Dembski’s part?

The IDM is full of characters, some of whom are scientifically qualified. The ‘culture war’ mentality & the PR side of the DI, however, make it a difficult ‘institution’ to deal with. This is why I have stressed for several years to Mike Gene, & now suggest the same to you:
Gregory - #22756

July 20^th 2010

Come up with an alternative theory or take a new angle to ‘design’ or ‘neo-Darwinism’, so you won’t be negatively painted by the IDM’s reputation and its legal squabbles!

Otherwise, much of your time and energy will be wasted defending Behe, Dembski, Meyer and others *in* the IDM, which in the end produces little.

If you want to be associated with the Discovery Institute and become an official ID-advocate or ID-hypothesizer, it’s a free country. But there are consequences to that as well…
John - #22757

July 20^th 2010

“Well, John, I41 don’t think you have zero qualifications in science & I doubt if Rich thinks this either.”

So why would Rich bear false witness, do you think?

“Btw, what field(s) do you have qualifications in? Rich has disclosed his qualifications here, but I don’t remember anywhere reading yours.”

Where has Rich disclosed his? Besides, I’m rather wait until Rich demonstrates his faith in his claims—or not.

“Hmm…I didn’t know that Dembski made a Flash animation after the Dover trial about the judge. Do you know if he made it himself or if someone else did?”

In Dembski’s own words:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/flatulence-removed-from-the-judge-jones-school-of-law/

“The IDM is full of characters, some of whom are scientifically qualified.”

But none who are willing to test an ID hypothesis.
Gregory - #22759

July 20^th 2010

Thanks for the link, John. Now I remember hearing about this before. What a circus!

Rich has disclosed his qualifications here at BioLogos. I don’t remember the thread. You can ask him if you want or search the archives. He is not asking, but now I am, for yours.

This of course has *nothing* to do with whether Behe, Dembski or Meyer have produced the goods or not in mathematics or information sciences. I doubt they have.

But I’d put bets on S. Meyer in a debate about ‘origins of life’ (i.e. not just biology and genetics) with *anyone* at BioLogos, trusting that Cambridge University doesn’t graduate dummies or give degrees for HPS dissertations on ‘origins of life’ to those who are ignorant of the topic or simply who have a religious axe to grind.

And btw, I’m not a moderator, but this he said-she said stuff is far afield of “What do most Christians really believe about Evolution?”

Sometimes I get the feeling, John, that you’re not really interested in BioLogos’ mission of promoting science and faith dialogue. Are you? I’m not an ID-advocate either. But I do see a positive relationship btw science, philosophy and religion. Do you?
Rich - #22760

July 21^st 2010

John:

I don’t really care whether your qualifications in science are zero or great. I know that your dialogical habits leave much to be desired, which suggests to me that, no matter how high the level of science education you have attained, gentlemanly debating habits weren’t part of that scientific education. I learned from my supervisors, early on, even in undergraduate, that I had to pull my aggressiveness back a notch or two, and not argue ad hominem, and not impute bad motives to people, and grant points to others, and occasionally admit that I had made a mistake or had spoken too soon.

I wish you would stop jumping in on my discussions with R Hampton and others. You’ve already seen how badly things can get mangled. Let R Hampton and I work out our own differences. He doesn’t need your help, and in this incident, your “help” just confused both you and me, and probably him as well, if he paid any attention at all to your intervention.

I echo Gregory’s question. Do you have the slightest personal interest in Christianity? Or are you just here as a Darwinist, hunting ID prey? I haven’t seen single comment of yours yet, on any thread, that indicates an interest in the mission of Biologos.
R Hampton - #22808

July 21^st 2010

Let’s examine a portion of the aforementioned paper, and evaluate some of the competing claims of Dembski and Devine to see where we disagree:
1. Is the universal Martin Lof randomness test an agreed mathematical measure of randomness?
2. Does Dembski’s decision process prematurely eliminate natural explanations for surprise outcomes?
3. Does Dembski’s approach ignore differences in order?
4. Does algorithmic information theory enhance Dembski’s approach because it accounts for differences in order?
5. Does the deficiency in randomness test reveal differences between the description of a typical or random string and the shortest description of an ordered string?
6. Does the deficiency in randomness test reveal non-random order in living structures?
7. Does the the deficiency in randomness definition tie in with current algorithmic understandings of information, entropy and order?
8. Does the the deficiency in randomness definition more robust because it lacks the ambiguities of Dembski’s definition?
9. Does access to highly ordered or low entropy resources allow for natural processes to produce non-random order?
continued
R Hampton - #22809

July 21^st 2010

(cont.)
Sean Devine provides an improved design template based on the universal randomness test; In summary, the robust approach of the right hand column in Table 1 involves the following steps.
1. Can chance explain this event; i.e. is it random using a Martin Lof universal randomness test?
2. If it is not a chance event, can the system access more ordered or low entropy resources externally by natural processes?
3. If, and only if, an observed natural outcome cannot be explained by any of the above steps should non natural design ever be considered.
John - #22811

July 21^st 2010

Rich admitted, “I don’t really care whether your qualifications in science are zero or great.”

I know. When you claimed that they were zero, you didn’t believe that. So if you take Christianity seriously, why bother with your casual lie, Rich? Why is God so weak that He needs you to lie for Him?

It’s really all about tribalism, which Jesus Christ spoke out against.

“I know that your dialogical habits leave much to be desired, ...gentlemanly debating habits weren’t part of that scientific education. I learned from my supervisors, early on, even in undergraduate, that I had to pull my aggressiveness back a notch or two, and not argue ad hominem,…”

Rich, you’re so deluded that you just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences.

“I echo Gregory’s question. Do you have the slightest personal interest in Christianity?”

Yes, I’m a Congregationalist. Do you?

“I haven’t seen single comment of yours yet, on any thread, that indicates an interest in the mission of Biologos.”

There can’t be a real dialog until your side stops the cynical lying about unequivocal facts and starts testing its own hypotheses in the lab and in the field.
John - #22813

July 21^st 2010

Gregory:
“But I’d put bets on S. Meyer in a debate about ‘origins of life’ (i.e. not just biology and genetics) with *anyone* at BioLogos, trusting that Cambridge University doesn’t graduate dummies or give degrees for HPS dissertations on ‘origins of life’ to those who are ignorant of the topic or simply who have a religious axe to grind.”

OK, so why would Meyer have put these in his book? Do you believe them?
p.128
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction involving the two (tRNA-borne) amino acids.”
p.298
“According to this [RNA-first] model, these RNA enzymes eventually were replaced by the more efficient proteins that perform enzymatic functions in modern cells.”

I hope you’re smart enough to see the codependency of the two claims. I’m asking about simple matters of fact, not interpretation.
Rich - #22816

July 21^st 2010

R Hampton:

I am not interested in debating, at this point, Dembski vs. Devine. I never made any claim that Dembski was right or that Devine was wrong. (Though I did suggest that you should read Dembksi himself, and not *only* through Devine.) In fact, before you launched into Dembski vs. Devine, at the point where you gave a list of about ten ID critics, I told you that your whole line of argument was a *non sequitur*. Go back to that post, and answer the original concern I was talking about—which was *not* the correctness or incorrectness of ID, but the misrepresentations and misformulations of ID. That’s what I wanted to talk about. If you wish to discuss that topic, I’m all ears. If you want to talk about Devine, find another conversation partner.
Rich - #22818

July 21^st 2010

John:

Interesting to hear that you are a Congregationalist. Are you active? The reason I ask is that I haven’t seen a single comment from you here on Biologos that shows any current reflection on Christianity and science. That’s like someone writing comments for Panda’s Thumb that show no interest in the subject of evolution.

All your comments seem focused on attacking ID and ID authors and anyone who supports or even fails to sufficiently denounce ID. Criticism of ID is common enough on Biologos, but detached from any discussion of Christian theology it would be better published on TalkOrigins than here.

I’m also used to a different set of manners from practicing Christians. I’m not used to being addressed in angry and irritable tones, and being steadily accused of deceiving, bearing false witness, etc. The Christians I know don’t converse with each other in that way. But maybe Congregationalists are a more belligerent lot than the self-effacing Anglicans and Catholics I grew up with.
Rich - #22823

July 21^st 2010

Gregory:

Thanks for your earlier defense of me against John’s aggressive attacks.

Regarding John’s latest reply to you, he notes 2 sentences from a 500+ page book that allegedly contain errors. He intimates that these errors are of great significance, without stating what the significance is. But I’ve read Meyer’s book very carefully, and I know that the argument proceeds in such a way that no *single* statement of fact, not even several *single* statements of fact taken together, undermine the main line of argument of the book. John is shouting about the bad looks of a couple of misshapen trees, while not noticing the handsome look of the forest overall.

Of course, if John had read Darwin’s *Origin of Species* straight through, as I have, he would know that there are literally hundreds of errors in the book. But would John argue that those many errors destroy the overall correctness of Darwin’s conclusions? The double standard applied against ID books is apparent.

As for his comment, “I hope you’re smart enough to see…” (the implication being that it’s certain that John is smart, whereas there is doubt in your case), it’s uncalled for, but you have already noted this feature of his writing.
R Hampton - #22827

July 21^st 2010

Rich,

My posts directly address the notion that ID is misrepresented. Clearly you made an overly broad statement, and I responded by providing you with intelligent criticism of Behe, Dembski, Meyer, et. al. So if misrepresentation is what you want to talk about, you can start with being more precise and stop indiscriminately misrepresenting ID’s critics.
Rich - #22836

July 21^st 2010

R Hampton:

Please look back at 22465, from which you lifted the original quotation. I wrote, in part:

“I’m constantly suggesting that open-to-design-detection TEs and open-to-macroevolution IDers sign terms of peace, and exchange ideas and insights fraternally. My formulation of ID facilitates such peaceful exchange. But a number of Darwinians, both TE and atheist, seem determined to prevent even the hearing of any reasonable formulation of ID; they want ID to be read as miracle-mongering anti-science, so that it can easily be put down.”

Note that I did not say “all Darwinians” but “a number of Darwinians”, which I believe to be an entirely true statement. (Note that “a number” does not even imply “the majority”, so I can hardly be accused of being overly-sweeping.)

Note also that I was speaking of those who represented ID as “miracle-mongering anti-science”, and who hoped, by convincing the public of this misrepresentation, that ID could “easily be put down”. I was not criticizing those who argue: “Dembski calculates incorrectly on page 563”; I was criticizing those who charge that ID is “God of the gaps” and “attacks the foundations of science”. Your replies did not deal with that concern.
Gregory - #22855

July 21^st 2010

John,

Just a moment to write now…

I wonder what you meant in #22696 by using the term ‘Christianists’?

Don’t fellow believers in Christianity usually refer to brothers and sisters as ‘Christians’?

The few people that I’ve heard use this word are atheists, agnostics or even anti-theists.

But as a congregationalist, you don’t count as one of these, right?

Thanks,
Gregory

p.s. yes, i know a fair bit about Sokal and the ‘hoax,’ which is likely what you’re referring to. Does discussion of him or it belong in this thread?
John - #22858

July 21^st 2010

Rich wrote:
“Regarding John’s latest reply to you, he notes 2 sentences from a 500+ page book that allegedly contain errors.”

I’m not alleging that they are errors, Rich. I don’t think Meyer’s that incompetent or ignorant.

“He intimates that these errors are of great significance, without stating what the significance is.”

Why should I? And I’m not intimating that they are errors.

“But I’ve read Meyer’s book very carefully, and I know that the argument proceeds in such a way that no *single* statement of fact, not even several *single* statements of fact taken together, undermine the main line of argument of the book.”

Science is about evidence, Rich. Is Meyer conveying the actual evidence to his readers? What is the strongest single fact supporting the RNA World hypothesis? You have no basis for running away given your claim about careful reading.

”... But would John argue that those many errors destroy the overall correctness of Darwin’s conclusions?”

No, Rich, I would argue that all the EVIDENCE produced since then from testing empirical predictions has supported the overall validity of what was a hypothesis when he proposed it, but is now a theory.
John - #22859

July 21^st 2010

Gregory:
“I wonder what you meant in #22696 by using the term ‘Christianists’?”

I mean those tribalists who emphasize the label “Christian” while rejecting Christ’s actual teachings. Theologically, when Jesus and Paul conflict or Jesus and the OT conflict, they choose Paul and the OT. I’m not saying that anyone here is necessarily one.

“Don’t fellow believers in Christianity usually refer to brothers and sisters as ‘Christians’?”

Yes.

“But as a congregationalist, you don’t count as one of these, right?”

RIght.

“p.s. yes, i know a fair bit about Sokal and the ‘hoax,’ which is likely what you’re referring to. Does discussion of him or it belong in this thread?”

You were asserting that the social sciences have things to say about science that scientists aren’t equipped to comprehend, were you not?
“Dr. Joel Martin has no training to express an educated opinion @ ‘evolutionism’ …” and “Dr. Martin has probably never read ..., has little knowledge of the arguments between anthropologists about ‘evolutionism’ in the first quarter of the 20th century. Why should I afford *any* value to his views @ ideology or ‘evolutionism’ in particular?”
Rich - #22860

July 21^st 2010

John:

If you have a criticism of Meyer’s book, you should be stating it rather than dancing around it. State what you take to be Meyer’s argument, and state what you take to be the defective parts of the argument. Otherwise, grant what thousands of readers have already perceived—that Meyer has written a thoughtful book about the practical and theoretical difficulties of origin-of-life research and the nature of theorizing in the historical sciences.

But do this on another thread, not the one we are on, since it would be off-topic here.

I’m much more interested in hearing how you, as a Congregationalist “Christianist”, put together your Christian faith and Darwinian evolution. After all, the theme of the thread is “what do Christians believe about evolution?” Why not add your views to the statistics already gathered?
Rich - #22861

July 21^st 2010

Ooops, I see that my posting overlapped with another one. So John doesn’t call himself a “Christianist”. He just calls himself a Christian. Or maybe just a Congregationalist. Either way, his views on evolution in light of his personal theology would be interesting.
John - #22862

July 21^st 2010

Rich wrote:
“If you have a criticism of Meyer’s book, you should be stating it rather than dancing around it. State what you take to be Meyer’s argument, and state what you take to be the defective parts of the argument.”

No, Rich, science is not some prissy high-school debate. It’s about producing new evidence. Why don’t you quit your job and produce some?

”…Meyer has written a thoughtful book about the practical and theoretical difficulties of origin-of-life research and the nature of theorizing in the historical sciences.”

Nice false dichotomy there! Is “A protein called peptidyl transferase…” a thoughtful statement?

“But do this on another thread, not the one we are on, since it would be off-topic here.”

Then you should direct your rage to Gregory, who brought up Meyer on THIS thread.

I’m much more interested in hearing how you, as a Congregationalist “Christianist”, put together your Christian faith and Darwinian evolution.”

I’m a Christian, as I place Jesus’s teachings above anything in the OT or from Paul. Genesis is poetry and metaphor.

So why would you claim that we Behe bashers have zero training/experience, if you are a Christian and you didn’t believe that?
Rich - #22866

July 21^st 2010

John:

I made no claim about your training or experience in particular. I made a general statement that there seemed to be a lot of people on the internet who were exaggerating their scientific knowledge and/or formal training, and it seems that you took it to apply to you. But I was making a statistical generalization, not speaking of any individual in particular.

I find it unlikely that the hundreds of bloggers and commenters who daily and pseudonymously bash ID people on the internet have reached Behe’s level of training in biochemistry, Dembski’s in probability theory, Meyer’s in the philosophy of science, Sternberg’s in evolutionary biology, Denton’s in medical genetics, etc. Yet that doesn’t stop them from fulminating angrily and saying what lousy scientists and charlatans all these guys are.

I have no idea what sort of scientific training you have. Your manner of debate, however, is not the manner that I was brought up to associate with highly educated people, including scientists. I expect, from Ph.D.s, more open-mindedness, the willingness to occasionally grant a point, and less sarcasm. Also, you tend to speak in pop cliches. How many times have you used “high-school debate” so far?
Gregory - #22870

July 21^st 2010

“Your manner of debate, however, is not the manner that I was brought up to associate with highly educated people, including scientists.” - Rich

John, please take it with a grain of salt. I agree with Rich on this. I do not appreciate some of your words and accusations.

For example, Martin Rizley is *not* an ID supporter and yet you call him an IDC without hesitation.

Perhaps a measure of Christian grace could help lower the tone and add to the quality of the discussions?

“Then you should direct your rage to Gregory, who brought up Meyer on THIS thread.” - John

I’d admit my mistake if I had brought up Meyer in a thread having nothing to do with him. But it appears HornSpiel is the first to have mentioned him in this thread and that you discussed him here before I did.

Like Rich, I’d be interested to here you explain what you, as a Christian and/or congregationalist, really believe about evolution. Will you indulge us?

p.s. you don’t have to in my view discuss ‘Darwinian evolution,’ as Rich asks, because there are other ‘varieties of evolution’ as well, which could be implied in the title of this thread. But what are your views of eVo, other than ID(C) bashing?
John - #22887

July 22^nd 2010

“For example, Martin Rizley is *not* an ID supporter and yet you call him an IDC without hesitation.

He’s not a creationist?

“Perhaps a measure of Christian grace could help lower the tone and add to the quality of the discussions?”

Perhaps, but then I’m probing for a measure of Christian faith and not finding any.

“I’d admit my mistake if I had brought up Meyer in a thread having nothing to do with him.”

But it wasn’t a mistake. It’s perfectly appropriate when assessing what Christians believe. So do you believe Meyer?

“Will you indulge us?”

I began to do so. Will you indulge me wrt Meyer, since Rich apparently has little faith in him? Then I’ll be glad to indulge you some more.

“p.s. you don’t have to in my view discuss ‘Darwinian evolution,’ as Rich asks, because there are other ‘varieties of evolution’ as well, which could be implied in the title of this thread.”

Good point, as much of what I’ve personally witnessed is non-Darwinian.

What amazes me is that I’ve done far more to test Dembski’s and Behe’s hypotheses (i.e., their assumptions falsely presented as fact) then either of them have in the course of pursuing completely different goals!
Roger A. Sawtelle - #22926

July 22^nd 2010

The first problem that I see with this debate is that it is NOT science vs theology, but modernism vs postmodernism. The reason why it has lasted so long without any real resolution is because both modernism and postmodernism have strong points and serious weaknesses. It is not a question as to whether the glass is half empty or half full, but why it is not completely full.

Evolution as the process of change is fully compatible with Christianity, which is based on change from the old to the new. On the other hand change is not compatible with philosophy which is based on absolute Being. Evolution undermines the philosophical basis of our culture and faith. Until this is addressed the isue cannot be resolved.

There is accumulating evidence that evolution does not correspond the way Darwin described it. He did not foresee symbiosis as an important engine if not the engine for change. Darwinists like Dawkins reject symbiosis because it threatens their postmodern world view.
Roger A. Sawtelle - #22927

July 22^nd 2010

Those who want to improve the science of evolution need to explore the roles of symbiosis and adaption as opposed to conflict and chance in evolution. The world is ready for a scientific revolution in that science. Also check out the new theory of niche construction.

Also we need to develope a new intellectual basis for philosophy, science, and theology to take the place of traditional Greek thought
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

What Do Most Christians Really Believe About Evolution?

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment