Discovery Institute's Doctor Shopping

Posted 24 May 2005 by Burt Humburg

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/discovery-insti-3.html

Two days ago, word of a survey reached the ears of the Panda’s Thumb. (Not to mix metaphors too much.) A Jewish theological seminary in New Jersey had polled doctors to see what their feelings were on evolution, intelligent design, etc. Additionally, they stratified the results based on religious identification. The results were hardly surprising to those who have been critics of the intelligent design movement. As the resident doctor here at the Thumb, I deferred commenting on this particular survey because the results were so predictable.

Well, the Discovery Institute is shopping around the idea that this survey provides evidence of a growing body of scientists that endorse ID creationism. (To be fair, their language only said that this survey was evidence of “a lively debate,” as though their enthusiasm was less about any scientific breakthrough and more about simply being prominent.)

We’ll discuss this survey on the flip side…

There are several interesting things about the data reported for that poll. Mainly, of course, and most obvious, is the distribution of responses across religions. For example,

The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%).

The pattern is even more striking when the responses of other religious/ethnic groups are included. While 43% of Protestant physicians agree “More with evolution”, 61% of Catholics, 86% of Jews, 68% of Hindus, 71% of Buddhists, 95% of atheists, and 86% of “spiritual but no organized religion” agree. Most striking, just 20% of Muslim respondents agree.

What does this mean? The press release says

“As our earlier physician studies indicated, religion, culture and ethnic heritage have an impact on their views of science, even from this relatively homogenous group of physicians who share similar education, income and social status, noted Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner, HCD Research.

Controlling for education, income, and social status, the variables that govern opinions on the evo-creo issue are extra-scientific, and specifically heavily loaded on religious beliefs. Again, ID creationism receives its support for reasons not related to science. ID creationism is a response to socio-religious issues, even among highly educated people who (though they tend not to be as well educated in the doing of science as popular opinion believes) presumably at least use the results of scientific research every day.

I do wish these polls would ask the question that the Cleveland Plain Dealer asked:

QUESTION: Would you say that you are very familiar, somewhat familiar, or not that familiar with the concept of “intelligent design?”
Very Familiar - 18%;
Somewhat Familiar - 37%;
Not Familiar - 45%

Writing from personal experience, I can attest that all of the people in medical school who endorsed intelligent design creationism (who made their affinities known) did so due to strictly religious reasons. Further, the majority of my classmates did not know what intelligent design was nor what the big deal about evolution was. (This was a medical school in Kansas City and Wichita populated almost exclusively by Kansans; not exactly an American Atheists meeting.) Needless to say, the claims made by the creationists in Topeka - that it is not possible to be a Christian and an advocate of evolution - are false.

It remains for me to mention that, in medical school, intelligent design concepts were never used in lectures. Contrarily, evolutionary perspectives not only made the material easier to understand, it provided the basis for the research about which we were learning and concepts directly related to evolution were a portion of both the USMLE Steps 1 and 2 when I took it.

In another essay, I intend to describe why it is that most doctors should not be considered scientists. Suffice it to say that for the DI to shop around a list of “scientists” who endorse ID creationism whose scientists are mainly M.D.’s is telling.

BCH

— Richard Hoppe assisted greatly in the development of this post.

112 Comments

T. Bruce McNeely · 24 May 2005

Interesting survey - I wonder how different the results would be in other countries (ie Canada)?
I agree, clinical physicians aren't really scientists, although our education is based on science. Our field is applied science,like engineering, dietetics, lab technology and so forth. Certainly there are scientists in our ranks, but they do research, present their findings and subject them to peer review and criticism.
I consider myself well-educated in science, with a BSc in chemistry, an MD and 5 years postgrad in Pathology - but I'm not a scientist!

Corbs · 24 May 2005

The pattern is even more striking when the responses of other religious/ethnic groups are included. While 43% of Protestant physicians agree "More with evolution", 61% of Catholics, 86% of Jews, 68% of Hindus, 71% of Buddhists, 95% of atheists, and 86% of "spiritual but no organized religion" agree. Most striking, just 20% of Muslim respondents agree.

I'm intrigued. What do the 5% of atheists who don't believe in evolution propose?

SEF · 24 May 2005

They may be the alien seed bunch (possibly including some alien abductionists and ufologists too). Alternatively, they may be the ones too stupid or dishonest to fill in the form correctly (ie not necessarily really atheists at all). They might even be so ignorant that they never came across the concept of evolution. It does happen.

JohnK · 24 May 2005

More from the poll...

% of doctors who believe that God created humans exactly as they appear now: 35% of 417 Protestants, 43% of 40 Muslims, 37% of 46 Eastern Orthodox

The best measure of poll respondents overwhelmingly motivated by strictly religious considerations.

Russell · 24 May 2005

35% of 417 Protestants, 43% of 40 Muslims, 37% of 46 Eastern Orthodox The best measure of poll respondents overwhelmingly motivated by strictly religious considerations.

Really? Those numbers don't look statistically significantly different to me.

Ralph Jones · 24 May 2005

A little off topic, but still in the medical area: Since Bush does not want to use federal money for embryonic stem cell research, what is the best place to send donations in support of this research? A great groundswell of donations would be a thing of beauty!

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

I thought that was the point? showing that organized religion contributed to the similarity of the statistics among the groups listed.

David Heddle · 24 May 2005

Needless to say, the claims made by the creationists in Topeka - that it is not possible to be a Christian and an advocate of evolution - are false.

That may be true, but the repeated allusions on PT that Catholicism is fine with evolution are misleading. Catholicism, as far as official Roman doctrine is concerned, is fine with theistic evolution only. John Paul II stated, "the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." This is a far cry from a blanket endorsement of full-bodied evolution. I don't think many PTers endorse divine causality. BTW, I agree that ID is religiously motivated. What were those two atheists who favored ID thinking?

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

@ralph:

if you can dig up this article, it will probably have your answers:

Private donors breathe new life into US stem cell research

T Ready
Nature Medicine 10, 320 (2004).

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

"BTW, I agree that ID is religiously motivated"

will you say that under oath the next time a legal trial on teaching ID occurs?

Russell · 24 May 2005

I thought that was the point? showing that organized religion contributed to the similarity of the statistics among the groups listed.

Hmmmm. I see what you mean. But to draw that conclusion, you'd have to see significantly different results from the "unaffiliated" group on the same question. Did I miss something?

David Heddle · 24 May 2005

will you say that under oath the next time a legal trial on teaching ID occurs?

Of course, I believe it so obviously I would say it whether or not I was under oath.

Nat Whilk · 24 May 2005

Writing from personal experience, I can attest that all of the people in medical school who endorsed intelligent design creationism (who made their affinities known) did so due to strictly religious reasons.
— Burt Humburg

How were you able to ascertain this?

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

"Of course, I believe it so obviously I would say it whether or not I was under oath."

great! I'll list you on our side on the witness list then.

It's unfortunate that so many on the ID side won't concede this point.

oh.. wait... that's right, the reason ID was invented to begin with is because teaching creationism is teaching religion is ILLEGAL.

glad to see you will be making that point for our side.

Ralph Jones · 24 May 2005

Thanks, Sir_Tj. Powers that be: How about an Off Topic thread every now and then, similar to the Bathroom Wall, but a little more "formal?"

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

"Did I miss something?" I think so...

while 11% believe that "God created humans exactly as they appear now."

i'd say 11 vs around 40 is pretty convincing. You do make a point tho, I think the article presents the statistics in a rather confusing manner.

Jim Harrison · 24 May 2005

Several years ago, I asked several dozen Yale grads with Masters and Ph.D degrees about the modern theory of evolution. Aside from the biologists, most of them were woefully ignorant about the subject even though a strong majority assumed the validity of Darwinism. They just didn't know much about what they were endorsing. Lots of 'em believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics or some version of orthogenesis and thought that was part of the modern synthesis.

Neither a yes or a no answer to a poll question tells us very much about the state of knowlege of the respondents.

Michael White · 24 May 2005

The mixing up of doctors and scientists seems to be one of the biggest misconceptions about what constitutes a scientist that I hear about among my non-scientist friends, and it drives me crazy!

Being a PhD student at a medical center, I can really see that difference in my daily interaction with my medical student and resident friends. These friends are very good at doing what they do - practicing medicine, but not one of them, even ones who majored in biology or biochemistry as undergraduates, have any serious training in fields relevant to evolutionary biology. None of them know anything about the current literature in comparative genomics, evo-devo, phylogenetics, etc., and few would be able to get through a journal article on the subject.

Yet I frequenty hear from evangelical friends who are physicians about how evolution is just a theory and not a fact (sigh), it shouldn't be taught dogmatically in schools, etc. The scariest thing about that situation is you have someone who does have some background in biology, and they think that they therefore have some kind of expert authority when they talk about evolution - as if they have been able to evaluate the evidence on their own and make a professional judgment.

My consolation is listening to professors complain about giving lectures in biochemistry to medical students...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005

That may be true, but the repeated allusions on PT that Catholicism is fine with evolution are misleading. Catholicism, as far as official Roman doctrine is concerned, is fine with theistic evolution only.

No shit.

John Paul II stated, "the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." This is a far cry from a blanket endorsement of full-bodied evolution.

Huh? What the hell is the difference between theistic evolution and "full-bodied evolution" . . . . . ?

I don't think many PTers endorse divine causality.

I see, so you are still under the ignorant delusion that science is atheistic . . . . right? Does weather forecasting endorse divine causality? What about "full-bodied weather forecasting"? How about accident investigation? Does accident investigation endorse divine causality? How about "full-bodied accident investigation"? Why is atheism in some areas acceptable for you, but atheism in other areas is not?

BTW, I agree that ID is religiously motivated.

No shit. Why do your ID pals keep claiming otherwise? Are they lying to us, or are they just really really stupid?

What were those two atheists who favored ID thinking?

The same thing Behe and Dembski proposed --- the space aliens did it. I'm curious, Heddle ----- does "full-bodied intelligent design theory" propose that there is no god and that the space aliens did it? Is "full-bodied intelligent design theory", in your view, just as "atheistic" as "full-bodied evolution" is? If so, then what are Dembski, Behe and their pals. Just "half-bodied" IDers?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005

The mixing up of doctors and scientists seems to be one of the biggest misconceptions about what constitutes a scientist that I hear about among my non-scientist friends, and it drives me crazy!

Indeed, medical doctors are nothing but glorified auto mechanics. Most of them don't know any more about evolution than the kid who delivers my pizzas does. And their opinions on the matter mean no more than his. When it comes to evolution, the only people whose opinions matter are those who have studied it. And no serious biologist doubts that evolution happened. Even Behe (the closest thing to a biologist that IDers have) accepts common descent and the evolution of humans from apelike primates.

David Heddle · 24 May 2005

Lenny, don't be stupid. First of all, I don't know why the famous IDers state that ID is not religiously motivated. I have no clue. You'd have to ask them. I have never in my life spoken to or exchanged emails with Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson, etc. So why do you suppose I can speak for them? Secondly, it is patently obvious what I mean by full-bodied evolution. I meant evolution in which God had no role--purely naturalistic--with the possibility that something other than humans as we are now could have evolved. Rome does not endorse such a view of evolution, it only endorsed theistic evolution (as an acceptable, optional viewpoint). I couldn't count how many times I read on PT that Catholics are free to endorse evolution, where this critical caveat of affirming divine causality was omitted.

Indeed, medical doctors are nothing but glorified auto mechanics.

I wonder if the author of this post agrees with your assessment.

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

"I have no clue. "

indeed.

Flint · 24 May 2005

Michael White:

not one of them, even ones who majored in biology or biochemistry as undergraduates, have any serious training in fields relevant to evolutionary biology. None of them know anything about the current literature in comparative genomics, evo-devo, phylogenetics, etc., and few would be able to get through a journal article on the subject.

I find this statement depressing, even though it may be accurate. After all, very few of us out here in the Land of Ignorance can be expected to get through those journal articles. I don't understand one word in three. Looking up the words in the appropriate dictionary helps very little, because I lack the background to make sense of any of it, from the fine level of what the actual words mean, to the background context within which those words make sense, to the history of the field both long-term and current, to the reason why the research was even undertaken. So after hours of puzzling through the words themselves, I'm left with the knowledge that someone did something for reasons outside my experience, using techniques not mentioned because I'm assumed to know them, based on a wealth of theory, assumptions, and background omitted for the same reason, drawing conclusions I have nothing to compare with so I can't grasp their import. Are people like me then expected not to be able to understand this issue? Or at least, not beyond the canonical level of "nature provides variation, selected through environmental pressures, which leads to splits in populations (or anagenesis?) at rates that vary widely for reasons I can't understand"? I agree with Lenny Flank's statement that my opinion does not 'matter' in any larger sense, but it matters to ME that my answer to such a poll would be not much better informed than a coin flip, compared with most others posting here. I just don't like the idea that science, wonderful as it is, necessarily remains mysterious and inaccessible to nearly everyone.

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

"I just don't like the idea that science, wonderful as it is, necessarily remains mysterious and inaccessible to nearly everyone."

I don't either. that's why i support all the publically accesible reprint library projects that are starting to appear on the web. a really good grounding in any complex theory requires time. Most decent texts will give you the basic definitions you need to progress to the more advanced stuff.

I am hoping that someday, the only limit to gaining a better understanding of ANY subject simply depends on how much time you have.

things like the internet public library:

http://www.ipl.org/

and efforts towards "open source" biology:

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66289,00.html

I hope will eventually lead to better understanding without having to have an advanced degree.

cheers

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

oh, and don't forget google scholar:

http://scholar.google.com/

Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005

and specifically wrt to evolutionary theory, we can't of course forget talkorigins.org!

BC · 24 May 2005

John Paul II stated, "the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." This is a far cry from a blanket endorsement of full-bodied evolution.

Rome does not endorse such a view of evolution, it only endorsed theistic evolution (as an acceptable, optional viewpoint). I couldn't count how many times I read on PT that Catholics are free to endorse evolution, where this critical caveat of affirming divine causality was omitted.

I wonder exactly what "does not exclude divine causality" means in this context? One might interprete "does not exclude divine causality" means "theistic evolution". On the other hand, one might also interprete "divine causality" as meaning "God made the universe, evolution happened naturally (without divine intervention), but the first-cause was God, through creation of the universe" -- hence "divine causality" is preserved even if God didn't meddle directly with life.

Moses · 24 May 2005

Flint Wrote: I find this statement depressing, even though it may be accurate. After all, very few of us out here in the Land of Ignorance can be expected to get through those journal articles. I don't understand one word in three. Looking up the words in the appropriate dictionary helps very little, because I lack the background to make sense of any of it, from the fine level of what the actual words mean, to the background context within which those words make sense, to the history of the field both long-term and current, to the reason why the research was even undertaken. So after hours of puzzling through the words themselves, I'm left with the knowledge that someone did something for reasons outside my experience, using techniques not mentioned because I'm assumed to know them, based on a wealth of theory, assumptions, and background omitted for the same reason, drawing conclusions I have nothing to compare with so I can't grasp their import.

I'm with you. Although I'm a bit luckier. My wife has a PhD in Developmental Biology and I've learned enough over the years that I proof read papers, posters and what-not to help her get the clarity of expression in the information dense format scientists use to convey their ideas. It still doesn't make me a trained biologist; but I'm not so easy to fool by silly ID psuedo-biology arguments. In the ID/evolution field, evolution is supported by, literally, tons of scholarly, peer-reviewed academic works. ID is supported by some religious kooks that can't even look at their religion and deal with it's obvious internal flaws without leaping into some escapist rationalization.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005

First of all, I don't know why the famous IDers state that ID is not religiously motivated. I have no clue.

Don't bullshit me, Heddle.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005

Secondly, it is patently obvious what I mean by full-bodied evolution. I meant evolution in which God had no role---purely naturalistic---with the possibility that something other than humans as we are now could have evolved.

Oh, you mean "atheism". Since "evolution" has nothing to do with "atheism", why don't you just say "atheism" when you mean "atheism". By the way, does "full-bodied weather forecasting" refer to weather forecasting in which God has no role? Does "full-bodied accident investigation" refer to accidents in whcih God had no role? Why is atheism --- oops, I mean "full-bodied whatever" -- acceptable to you in some areas, but not in others.

Henry J · 24 May 2005

Re "What do the 5% of atheists who don't believe in evolution propose?"

Perhaps they simply haven't studied the subject for themselves, and knowing that they haven't studied it didn't express an opinion?

Henry

frank schmidt · 24 May 2005

Catholicism, as far as official Roman doctrine is concerned, is fine with theistic evolution only.

This is a prime example of a true, but meaningless statement. Roman Catholics believe that everything is theistic. Doh. More to the point, David, you insist that the writings of Mayr, Dawkins and maybe Gould sum up all the implications of evolutionary biology by their atheism. Don't be silly. If you read their popular works, you would realize that their opinions are exactly that, opinions, and in fact, they would likely say that (well, not Ernst or Steve, since they're dead, but you get my drift). If you were to go a step further and learn a bit of evolutionary biology, it would be obvious that, even in their areas of professional expertise, where they do not address the God question, none are considered infallible. Let's back up and examine what appears to be your core belief that prevents you from accepting evolution: you state that the fact that mutations are random (in the ordinary sense of having no discernable pattern, as well as in the mathematical sense of obeying the laws of probability,) leaves God out of the equation. Well, lots of things are random. Sir T_J has pointed out that many aspects of the weather are random, as are diseases, nuclear decay, the arrangement of individual trees in a forest ecosystem, and a whole host of other things. So why should the fact that the exact bits of your DNA that were not directly inherited from your parents (i.e., the mutated ones) are randomly distributed (i.e., unpredictable and following the laws of probability) cause you so much grief? Is it perhaps your own pride that makes you want to believe that the laws of nature don't apply to you? Most of us learn the Principle of Copernicus at our mothers' knees, when we are told that the world doesn't revolve around our own temper tantrums. Grow up.

Ed Darrell · 24 May 2005

So, um, that shampoo in my shower that leaves my hair "full-bodied": May I use it before church on Sunday?

Burt Humburg · 24 May 2005

How were you able to ascertain this [that everyone in medical school who openly endorsed intelligent design did so for religious reasons]?

They told me. The ones who endorsed ID who did not make their views known to me might have been shopping the idea that they were just following the data, but the ones I knew about were religious. BCH

Henry J · 24 May 2005

Re "What do the 5% of atheists who don't believe in evolution propose?"

Perhaps they simply haven't studied the subject for themselves, and knowing that they haven't studied it didn't express an opinion?

Henry

Nat Whilk · 25 May 2005

Burt Humburg quotes me as asking:

How were you able to ascertain this [that everyone in medical school who openly endorsed intelligent design did so for religious reasons]?

He then replies:

They told me. The ones who endorsed ID who did not make their views known to me might have been shopping the idea that they were just following the data, but the ones I knew about were religious.

I take issue with your editing. What I actually asked was how you ascertained that "all of the people in medical school who endorsed intelligent design creationism (who made their affinities known) did so due to strictly religious reasons." (Emphasis added.) Admitting to being religious supporters of ID and admitting to endorsing ID for strictly religious reasons are two different things. Did they really make the latter admission?

Flint · 25 May 2005

Admitting to being religious supporters of ID and admitting to endorsing ID for strictly religious reasons are two different things. Did they really make the latter admission?

Even if they did, this is the sort of admission not to take literally. Religion colors everything the Believer sees. I would expect a Believer to deny that the reason is *strictly* religious, but rather that religion influenced him to find the arguments behind ID to be more persuasive. Would they have been persuasive absent the religious bias? Anyone who ventures to answer that question is kidding himself. There is no way to know.

David Heddle · 25 May 2005

Frank wrote:

More to the point, David, you insist that the writings of Mayr, Dawkins and maybe Gould...

It would be hard for me to insist thing since I never read Mayr or Dawkins or Gould.. um.. maybe some Gould a while back.. but still: can you point out where I wrote anything (much less in the for of insisting something) about their writings?

Let's back up and examine what appears to be your core belief that prevents you from accepting evolution: you state that the fact that mutations are random (in the ordinary sense of having no discernable pattern, as well as in the mathematical sense of obeying the laws of probability,) leaves God out of the equation.

Huh? Where did I write that? Are you talking about another David? I know there are a lot of us, but you started your comment with a quote from my comment, so it seems you are talking about me. If I wrote what you said I stated, I have forgotten about it. Please provide a link or reference. As for the statement about Catholicism, it is far from meaningless as you claim. PT and its contributors try to make a great deal of Rome's support for evolution. They always fail to mention it is for theistic evolution only. If you put the question to the Vatican: is it fine for a Catholic to support pure naturalism, in which God did not control the outcome, in which there was no guarantee than man as he is today would have evolved, the answer would be a resounding no. The only evolution a Catholic may affirm, as far as Rome is concerned, is the view that God maintained complete control and absolute sovereignty over his creation. It's a view of evolution as exclusively a secondary cause, and one with a divinely controlled outcome. PT should be honest when it claims the Catholic Church has given the green light to evolution. But PT and honesty don't mix well.

Jim Wynne · 25 May 2005

PT should be honest when it claims the Catholic Church has given the green light to evolution. But PT and honesty don't mix well.
— David Hettle

Of course Heddle doesn't consider the finely-tuned creationist practice of deliberately mischaracterizing opponents' arguments to be dishonest. The question regards descent by modification and not "pure naturalism." The Catholic church accepts the former but not the latter, which is not news. The contrast is made not between evil methodological naturalism and special creation, as Heddle would like, but between YECs and others who do not accept common descent and the Catholic church, which does.

Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005

What I actually asked was how you ascertained that "all of the people in medical school who endorsed intelligent design creationism (who made their affinities known) did so due to strictly religious reasons." (Emphasis added.) Admitting to being religious supporters of ID and admitting to endorsing ID for strictly religious reasons are two different things. Did they really make the latter admission?
— Heddle

Yes, though this required a bit of interpretation on my part. It seemed clear in our conversations that the religion came first and the "Hey, have you heard about irreducible complexity? I hear that's an argument against evolution" came second. I do think the one with whom I corresponded often said that it was for religious reasons he was a proponent, but there were at least two others that I had to conclude as much. In any case, all the ID creationists were religious proponents of ID creationism. BCH

Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005

As for the statement about Catholicism, it is far from meaningless as you claim. PT and its contributors try to make a great deal of Rome's support for evolution. They always fail to mention it is for theistic evolution only... PT should be honest when it claims the Catholic Church has given the green light to evolution. But PT and honesty don't mix well.
— Heddle

Surely, this is to be needlessly verbose. The Catholic church, with its first causes and proximate causes and whatnot, surely assume that God is soverign over everything. Therefore, to say that the Catholic Church has given the greenlight to evolution but only if it's theistic is to say that the Catholic Church has given the greenlight to gravity provided it is theistic. Mutatis mutandis for heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, and whether I'm wearing a green shirt today. In other words, you're bringing up a trivial difference in language. Trivial. As for PT not being honest, if you have data to back up your conclusion, I'd be happy to examine it. What I've seen from you over the track of two separate threads is a propensity to characterize as pivotal niggling little details of what must surely be language. (Do you honestly think you've contributed to the discussion here by saying that the Vatican only endorses evolution looked at from a God-centric viewpoint? Duh!) BCH

David Heddle · 25 May 2005

In #32024 Humburg, like Frank before him, is attributing things to me that I didn't write.

Flint · 25 May 2005

Heddle:

Have you noticed a pattern? You say something, lots of people respond, and with no known exceptions they didn't read you correctly. Everyone else has comprehension problems?

ChaNce · 25 May 2005

The only evolution a Catholic may affirm, as far as Rome is concerned, is the view that God maintained complete control and absolute sovereignty over his creation. It's a view of evolution as exclusively a secondary cause, and one with a divinely controlled outcome.

I couldn't care less whether Rome wants to tack on a mealy-mouthed explanation of why evolution must be theistic. The simple fact is that Rome's stance adds no predictive power over non-theisitic evolution, nor does it better describe the data and evidence of evolution on Earth than our current models of evolution. There is no evidence on Earth that would allow us to discern between Rome's explanation and our already well-supported non-theistic modern theory of evolution. Thus, Rome's position is essentially natualistic evo, with a useless addendum meant to reconcile doctorine and the stunning amount of scientific evidence inconsistent with their position. Evolution on Earth looks exactly the same whether Rome's god is involved or not. The only way you could expect a future world with a configuration not predicted by evo theory is if you you argue that god will break the rules that he/she/it has established on Earth. It is fine with me if Rome wants to do this, but we have no evidence that this has happened in the past, nor that it will in the future. Rome's "devine control" view is orthogonal to our understanding of evolution. It is purely based on faith, and irrelevant to whether modern evo theory explains the world around us. Strip Rome's irrelevant stance away, and for all practical purposes, Rome has endorsed non-theistic evolution. How they dress it up for their flock is inconsequential.

PT should be honest when it claims the Catholic Church has given the green light to evolution. But PT and honesty don't mix well.

For all practical purposes, Rome has given the green light. Honestly.

frank schmidt · 25 May 2005

So David, since you conclude that I misunderstood you, please state your core objections to the modern theory of biological evolution, in 25 words or less.

I also suggest that you explore two things:

1. what evolutionary biology really is about. Mayr's What Evolution Is is a good place to start, but clearly not the Last Word. You might also enjoy Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Gould may be problematic. He is a wonderful writer but his articles were written for a professional audience (readers of Natural History) and actually presuppose some knowledge of evolution, which makes him liable to misquoting as we see so often. The same thing can hold true for Dawkins.

2. what contemporary Catholic theology really says about evolution. Your characterization is not up to date, and appears to be borrowed from an early stage of your education. Here's a good place to start.

Frank

Nat Whilk · 25 May 2005

There is no evidence on Earth that would allow us to discern between Rome's explanation and our already well-supported non-theistic modern theory of evolution. Thus, Rome's position is essentially natualistic evo, with a useless addendum meant to reconcile doctorine and the stunning amount of scientific evidence inconsistent with their position.
— ChaNce

The second sentence appears to contradict the first. How can there be a "stunning amount of scientific evidence inconsistent" with the RC position if "[t]here is no evidence on Earth that would allow us to discern between" the RC position and "the well-supported non-theistic modern theory of evolution"?

Bob Maurus · 25 May 2005

Heddle's right - "In #32024 Humburg, like Frank before him, is attributing things to me that I didn't write."

The referenced quote was by Nat Whilk, not David Heddle.

Bob

David Heddle · 25 May 2005

Gee flint, go look at comment #32024 in which Humburg wrote: "Heddle wrote" and then goes on to quote something Nat wrote in #32009. Then, come back and say, "oops, my bad." Now as for when Humburg quoted me accurately, in my comment on Catholicism he wote

Surely, this is to be needlessly verbose

referring to my claim that leaving out that Rome does not endorse garden variety evolution but only theistic evolution is dishonest. It is not needlessly verbose. Textbook evolution and theistic evolution do agree on common descent. They disagree on much else. Theistic evolution is not evolution plus "I believe in God." To leave out Rome's caveats, and just claim it is just peachy with evolution, is good old fashioned PT quote mining.

As for PT not being honest, if you have data to back up your conclusion, I'd be happy to examine it.

Just google "Catholic Church evolution" on the main page. You'll get lots of evidence for quote mining--statements about how the Catholic Church accepts evolution, with no caveats that it is only theistic evolution. ChaNce:

I couldn't care less whether Rome wants to tack on a mealy-mouthed explanation of why evolution must be theistic.

Exactly. As long as we can say, "Rome gives her thumbs up."

Strip Rome's irrelevant stance away, and for all practical purposes, Rome has endorsed non-theistic evolution. How they dress it up for their flock is inconsequential.

Yes it's true what you say, if they stop insisting that God was involved then it really wouldn't be theistic evolution. I don't know how I missed that subtlety. Frank: I did not say you misunderstood me, I said you attributed statements to me that I didn't make. Big difference. You ask:

Please state your core objections to the modern theory of biological evolution, in 25 words or less.

I am aligned with the Catholic Church (for a change.) I have no core objections to theistic evolution. As for atheistic evolution, I have no criticisms of substance, since it is out of my field of nuclear physics. My gut instinct has always been that there has not been enough time. I am interested in examining sources that address that limited question.

Nat Whilk · 25 May 2005

Gould may be problematic. He is a wonderful writer but his articles were written for a professional audience (readers of Natural History) and actually presuppose some knowledge of evolution, which makes him liable to misquoting as we see so often. The same thing can hold true for Dawkins.
— frank schmidt

Gould's and Dawkins' writings aren't just problematic because they're liable to misquoting by those lacking background knowledge in evolution. They're problematic because Gould and Dawkins each viewed the other as being egregiously wrong on some important issues and weren't shy about saying so.

Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005

First off, I apologize for the misattribution of quotes. This was my fault and I take full responsibility. (See Heddle's objections to my posts above for those just tuning in.)

Secondly, Heddle writes with some authority that theistic evolution is not evolution with God included. Actually, it is. Theistic evolution does go a bit further and talk about the soverignty of God in all things, the inscrutability of God's methods to science, etc. But all of these are metaphysical statements, about which one would not - could not, should not - expect evolution as science to comment.

So, yes, your objections are trivial.

BCH

Flint · 25 May 2005

Heddle:

Oops, my bad.

frank schmidt · 25 May 2005

David gets down to it:

I have no core objections to theistic evolution. As for atheistic evolution, I have no criticisms of substance, since it is out of my field of nuclear physics.

So why are you being so contentious?

My gut instinct has always been that there has not been enough time. I am interested in examining sources that address that limited question.

Yeah, this is a biggie, because our brains really don't contemplate that sort of time very well. But you do agree that the Solar system including Earth is 4.56 * 10(9) years old, right? So the question/paradox, which origin of life researchers readily admit, is how one can go from accretion of the planet to evidence for life at 3.8 Gya, and pretty solid evidence a few hundred million years later. We know there was liquid water at 4.4 Gya. So that leaves somewhere between 0.6 and 1.0 * 10(9) years for cellular life to evolve. That is the time from the Cambrian to now, more or less. So if multicellular life could have evolved from the simplest fossilized forms to, well, us, that doesn't seem to be so short a time after all, does it? As for sources, you might like Life's Origin, edited by J. W. Schopf (U of CA press).

JohnK · 25 May 2005

to draw that conclusion [religious belief contributed to the similarity (35%-43%) among Protestants, Muslims, Orthodox re human special creation], you'd have to see significantly different results from the "unaffiliated" group on the same question.
— Russell

Significantly different results were seen for the 5 other identified categories which had very low acceptance. Of the "Other" group, 26 of 86 (29%) supported human special creation. "Other" would include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, possibly Seventh-Day Adventists whose willingness to self-identify as Protestant is ??, etc. It's not unreasonable to expect >1.8% of these variants in the sample of 1482.

Gould and Dawkins each viewed the other as being egregiously wrong on some important issues and weren't shy about saying so.
— Nat Whilk

In part, but there's far less to this than meets the eye. Both (Dawkins more IMO) characatured each other's positions a bit to have something to go on about. Each regarded much of the other's emphasis as obvious and not worthy of dwelling on. For example, their tete a tete in the NYRB was pretty funny by the end. Nothing matches academic catfights.

Flint · 25 May 2005

Several of our Usual Suspects are at the very least highly uncomfortable with the fact that no scientific explanation or exploration of anything involves or requires anything even remotely supernatural. The Catholic Church, in my reading, has conceded that the sheer weight of evidence, time, and consensus is foolish to oppose, and has repositioned its god so as not to interfere. For some, this new position (one where their god actually DOES nothing tangible) is an unacceptable demotion. For others, science itself is profoundly suspect for disallowing magical influences on principle, and wish to expand science to encompass the untestable.

The intellectual struggle revolves around locating the appropriate position of God (that is, MY god, not your god and certainly not their gods! I'm talking about the REAL god here!) in any useful investigation of reality. I suspect Heddle, among others, harbors the suspicion that his god isn't given enough respect by science, and is frustrated that science is stronger rather than weaker because of it. There doesn't seem to be any corresponding emotional struggle, though. An emotional struggle would imply their god's very existence is open to question. Not gonna happen.

David Heddle · 25 May 2005

Humburg, You wrote:

Heddle writes with some authority that theistic evolution is not evolution with God included

What I actually wrote was: "Theistic evolution is not evolution plus "I believe in God."", but no matter. I cannot speak for all theistic evolutionists, but, I suspect that if you ask questions of the following form (I could think of many others) you could perform a fairly good k-factor type discrimination between theistic evolutionists and traditional evolutionists:

Is it inevitable, assuming that we don't destroy the planet, that humans will continue to evolve until such time a new species designation is appropriate?. That is, at some future time there will be a species that descended from modern humans that could not successfully breed with modern humans?

Now you can wordsmith that question for violations of evolution orthodoxy, and maybe the word inevitable should be replaced with possible, but I think my point is clear. This is much closer to a scientific prediction than a metaphysical statement. Yet my contention is that those that answered yes would be biased toward traditional evolutionists and those answering no toward theistic evolution. I would bet, although I can only speculate, that Rome would answer no. The differences go well beyond the simple view that theistic evolution = evolution plus a belief in God. Flint: You da man. Frank wrote

So why are you being so contentious?

My contentiousness is fairly narrow on this thread: PT quote mining. As for your numbers, they seem about right. Keep in mind that most discoveries are going exacerbate the time problem: either earlier fossilized evidence will be uncovered or those "simplest" forms will be determined to be more complex than we imagine. (There is some recent evidence that the earth cooled faster than we thought which might allow for some more time.) Nevertheless, I cannot agree that "that doesn't seem like such a short time." The time has been compressed and the appreciation of the biochemical complexity of single-celled organisms enhanced by significant amounts since the first shouts of the mantra "given enough time, the unlikely becomes probable."

David Heddle · 25 May 2005

Flint wrote:

I suspect Heddle, among others, harbors the suspicion that his god isn't given enough respect by science

Au contraire, God is in the details.

Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005

Throughout Heddle's objections, there is a theme that full-bodied evolution just can't be full-bodied evolution without a denial of God as a positive metaphysical statement. IOW, evolution must entail atheism; to deny this aspect of evolution instruction or application is to not fully describe evolution and to deceive.

Contra Heddle's windmill tilting, evolution makes no metaphysical claims whatsoever. It is compatible with theistic metaphysics as well as atheistic metaphysics for precisely this reason. Indeed, any scientific statement will have, as a feature, the compatibility with any metaphysic that doesn't contradict that scientific statement. (That is, if you have religious beliefs against gravity, obviously gravity will contradict your religious beliefs, even though gravity itself doesn't make metaphysical propositions. Because it makes no such propositions, gravity is fully consistent with both atheistic and theistic metaphysics.)

Heddle is making much ado about nothing.

BCH

David Heddle · 25 May 2005

Humburg,

Throughout Heddle's objections, there is a theme that full-bodied evolution just can't be full-bodied evolution without a denial of God as a positive metaphysical statement.

No, no, no. Now I know that you misquoted me once as a typo, but there is a growing body of evidence that your new career at PT is already distinguished by your ability to distort. You must have been PT's first round draft choice. I have said, in fact, just the opposite. For in claiming, as I did at least twice, that theistic evolution is not just evolution plus "I believe in God," I have left the door wide open to claim a belief in (traditional) evolution plus a belief in God. If I had said the opposite of what in fact I did say, that is, if I had said that theistic evolution IS traditional evolution plus, merely, a belief in God, then I would have by definition done as you claim, I would have defined traditional evolutionists as necessarily atheistic. The strongest statement I have ever made in this regard, on another thread, is that the set of traditional evolutionists is biased toward atheists. This is manifestly true: if ID is heavily biased toward theists, and theistic evolutionists are by definition all theists, then the remaining group, traditional evolutionists, must be under represented by theists. At any rate, PT claims that traditional evolution is not biased toward atheism are as bizarre as IDer claims that ID has nothing to do with religion, IMHO. As for the rest of your comment, I have no clue what you are talking about. I am into physics and try to shun metaphysics.

Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005

It is troubling to see Heddle claim P repeatedly and then claim that I am misrepresenting him when I say that Heddle claims P. I actually began my last post by taking excerpts of all your posts in this thread and putting them one right after each other. It is a simple exercise to start at the top of the page, do a find for "Heddle," exclude the posts that weren't written by you, and demonstrate that you consider fully described evolution must necessarily entail atheism. As a simple example:

Secondly, it is patently obvious what I mean by full-bodied evolution. I meant evolution in which God had no role---purely naturalistic---with the possibility that something other than humans as we are now could have evolved. Rome does not endorse such a view of evolution, it only endorsed theistic evolution (as an acceptable, optional viewpoint). I couldn't count how many times I read on PT that Catholics are free to endorse evolution, where this critical caveat of affirming divine causality was omitted.
— Heddle

But evolution, as fully described by scientists in real life and by at least me in this thread, does not entail atheism. It makes no metaphysical statements of any kind, which means it is compatible with theistic and atheistic metaphysics. Traditional evolution, to use your language, does not mention God, nor does it deny the existence of God, nor is it evidence against God, nor (insert verb/prepositional phrase here) God. Again, evolution - traditional, fully described, or whatever language construct you'd care to use to describe it - doesn't have anything to say about metaphysics whatsoever. Yet you claim that full bodied evolution must describe an understanding in which God played no role. And now you're claiming I'm the PT poster child for misrepresentation. I leave it to others to judge whether I have distorted your language. I am also incredulous that someone with such an interest in religion would not understand what metaphysics is. The idea that science makes no metaphysical claims should be manifestly obvious to anyone with an interest in religion and philosophy, certainly anyone capable of arguing minutiae of what the Vatican meant when it talked about evolution. I suspect you're being willfully obtuse on this issue. There is a clear lack of content in your posts and, if this continues, the responsible thing to do will probably be to ignore your contributions. BCH

Flint · 25 May 2005

At any rate, PT claims that traditional evolution is not biased toward atheism are as bizarre as IDer claims that ID has nothing to do with religion, IMHO.

We seem to be permanently divided by a common language. I admit I simply don't understand what you intend to say here. I think I understand Finley's position, that in its methodological inability to address the supernatural in any way, science necessarily ignores what may or may not constitute some portion of reality, possibly nonexistent and possibly very large. But ignoring the supernatural seems to be what Christians do except for an hour each Sunday morning anyway, and occasional prayers that influence nothing but the prayer-reciter's sense of righteousness. Perhaps the communication problem lies in my understanding that evolution is simply part of the larger world of science, arrived at using the same method and subject to the same tests as anything else. Finley says that science itself is agnostic. Is this your claim also? Are you saying that one can pursue a highly successful career in science, making important contributions to our understanding of any part of the physical universe, irrespective of their particular religious faith, which thus allows those lacking any religious faith equal access? In this case, I would agree. But science as a general discipline seems neutral to any faith that does not rashly make incorrect scientific statements. In this regard, science is not "biased toward athiesm" so much as it is biased AGAINST doctrines containing scientific error.

Jim Wynne · 25 May 2005
This is manifestly true: if ID is heavily biased toward theists, and theistic evolutionists are by definition all theists, then the remaining group, traditional evolutionists, must be under represented by theists. At any rate, PT claims that traditional evolution is not biased toward atheism are as bizarre as IDer claims that ID has nothing to do with religion, IMHO.
— David Heddle
You need to try a little harder to get your stories straight. First you said, "...theistic evolution is not just evolution plus 'I believe in God'." Then "...the remaining group, traditional evolutionists, must be under represented by theists." So in other words, there may be "traditional evolutionists" who believe in God, but who are not theistic evolutionists, because they're actually "traditional" evolutionists. Of course, nowhere do you define what you mean by "traditional" in all of this, thereby apparently (naively) thinking you can avoid accusations of circular reasoning and somehow feel justified in making the nonsensical statement that "...the set of traditional evolutionists is biased towards atheism." And you probably have trouble understanding why this sort of fatuous dissembling works just fine in church, but no one here seems to understand it.

Jim Wynne · 25 May 2005
Traditional evolution, to use your [Heddle's] language, does not mention God, nor does it deny the existence of God, nor is it evidence against God, nor (insert verb/prepositional phrase here) God.
— BCH
No, "traditional" in this context means precisely and only whay Heddle intends it to mean, which in this case is "atheistic." The reason for this is that it allows him to say "Traditional evolution is biased toward atheism" and not "Atheistic evolution is biased towards atheism." He seems to think that the former sounds smarter than the latter.

Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005
Mr. Wynne, your observations may be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Heddle is a content-free poster.
BCH

David Heddle · 25 May 2005
Flint: What I am saying is very simple: If you take the set of people who affirm textbook evolution, it will contain a higher percentage of atheists than the overall population.
I have not attributed the cause to evolution. In fact, I worded it in such a manner as you could construe the bias as being the result of theists fleeing from textbook evolution and into theistic evolution and ID. I did not state anywhere that evolution "causes" atheism.
Jim W, try not to reach into the PT toolbox and grab the word "dissembling" it's so...2004.
Everything I said is consistent with this:
1) There are some who believe in traditional/textbook evolution and who are atheists.
2) There are some who believe in textbook evolution and who are theists. (Personally I think this group exists in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, but I don't deny they exist.)
3) There are theistic evolutionists, and this group is different from group (2). They have very different views on how directed evolution was from God, and, I speculated, would make different predictions about the future of our species.
Humburg, as near as I can tell, thinks I deny the existence of group (2). I don't deny them, I just don't understand them.
I am using the word traditional or textbook evolution because I do not know a better phrase. What I mean by it is what you would be taught in an evolution class. It would not include the notion that God directed evolution. Nor would it proclaim that God does not exist. I least I hope it wouldn't.

NastyLurker · 25 May 2005
Personally I think this group exists in a constant state of cognitive dissonance
And could you tell us why ?

Jim Wynne · 25 May 2005
Jim W, try not to reach into the PT toolbox and grab the word "dissembling" it's so . . . 2004.
— David Heddle
Sorry, but if the shoe fits... It's more economical than saying "deliberately deceitful," but if that's what you prefer, I'm fine with it.
I am using the word traditional or textbook evolution because I do not know a better phrase.
— David Heddle
And the reason that a reasonably articulate person such as you wouldn't be able to find a better characterization is just as I stated before, and I'm beginning to think that you actually don't see it--your reasoning is hopelessly circular. The concept of common descent exists irrespective of one's religious beliefs, and one either accepts it or doesn't. If a person happens to be theistically inclined, he may or may not experience some indigestion over the attempt to reconcile one belief with the other, but that internal conflict has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of biological evolution.

frank schmidt · 25 May 2005
Heddle hangs on to a thread:
The time has been compressed and the appreciation of the biochemical complexity of single-celled organisms enhanced by significant amounts since the first shouts of the mantra "given enough time, the unlikely becomes probable."
I don't recite mantras (gave that up when the Maharishi couldn't keep the Beatles from breaking up). Let's look at your most substantive claim (although I doubt it is correct): that the time was too short for abiogenesis to occur on Earth. What's your evidence for this claim? Have you (1) defined what is a living biochemical system? (2) defined the minimum number of reactions that will allow that system to transform energy, maintain itself and replicate? (3) examined the rate constants and precursor concentrations for assembling catalysts under any possible scenarios the minimum set of catalysts to carry out the reactions? And that's just a start. Science isn't allowed to simply say "It can't happen." One must parameterize that prediction by calculation or experiment. Dembski has tried to do this, but as a result of many shortcomings, hasn't succeeded. I know very little of particle physics, but I gather that this is how it works: As an example, the Higgs boson is predicted to have a certain mass (energy level), and the experiments are designed to detect whether that particle can be found at that energy level. If it isn't found at that energy, then it's time to work on the theory. One cannot say "The Higgs boson doesn't exist." Similarly, one could say "the assembly of a living cell by these processes and under these conditions has a probability of < (some value)," but IDC doesn't do this. It simply says "I don't believe it can happen because I want there to be some involvement of the Divine."

Jim Wynne · 25 May 2005
Heddle: Personally I think this group exists in a constant state of cognitive dissonance NastyLurker: And could you tell us why ?
I think the state he's referring to is Texas.

Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
@burt humburg:
"Mr. Wynne, your observations may be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Heddle is a content-free poster."
ahh, now you are seeing the reason for the crap-flinging war.
glad you felt you could join in
:)

Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
"I think the state he's referring to is Texas."
lol. you nailed that one, jim.

NastyLurker · 25 May 2005
LOL... Texas, the State of Cognitive Dissonance... Maybe all the other states with creationist leanings will separate form US and form United States of Cognitive Dissonance.

Flint · 25 May 2005
What I am saying is very simple: If you take the set of people who affirm textbook evolution, it will contain a higher percentage of atheists than the overall population. I have not attributed the cause to evolution.
— Heddle
Let me try to translate this out of Heddlese. There is only one known reason why people reject evolution: It conflicts with their religious doctrines. Those with such powerful religious doctrines as to deny the evidence are pretty much by definition religious people. Since ONLY religious people are removed from the pool of possible accepters of evolution, then necessarily NONbelievers are a higher percentage of what remains. How very insightful! So you are quite correct: there is no connection whatsoever between evolution and atheism or theism. As I wrote above, "science is not "biased toward atheism" so much as it is biased AGAINST doctrines containing scientific error."
...the result of theists fleeing from textbook evolution and into theistic evolution
— Heddle
But this, I can't begin to translate. If there is any distinction at all between "textbook" and "theistic" evolution, it is invisible to me, to the peer review process, and to the scientific method. I refuse to even guess what the difference might be. So long as someone is capable of drawing conclusions based on evidence, their religious faith is irrelevant. Anyone who accepts that evolution happens is a "textbook evolutionist." No dissonance involved.

David Heddle · 25 May 2005
Nasty Lurker: It's just my opinion. Frank: No I can't provide any evidence. You will note, if you look back, I characterized it as a gut instinct. I am aware of computer and mathematical models on both sides of the debate, but I have not studied any of them. Jim W:
The concept of common descent exists irrespective of one's religious beliefs, and one either accepts it or doesn't. If a person happens to be theistically inclined, he may or may not experience some indigestion over the attempt to reconcile one belief with the other, but that internal conflict has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of biological evolution.
You are missing the boat. All groups (1), (2), and (3) I listed above affirm common descent. But they would have violent disagreements on the role of God. Group (1) would say there is none. Group (2) would say as an observer only. And group (3) would say as an active player, at least to the extent that evolution produced humans exactly the way He wanted them to turn out. Sir TJ:
lol. you nailed that one, jim.
Your sense of humor can't be that bad. You must be doing that Family Feud "good answer, good answer" thing, right?

Jim Wynne · 25 May 2005
You are missing the boat. All groups (1), (2), and (3) I listed above affirm common descent. But they would have violent disagreements on the role of God.
— Heddle
And the disagreement would bear no relationship to the affirmation of common descent (i.e., "traditional evolution"). It would be a philosophical argument. All the while, evolution marches on.

DougT · 25 May 2005
David H
You are missing the boat. All groups (1), (2), and (3) I listed above affirm common descent. But they would have violent disagreements on the role of God. Group (1) would say there is none. Group (2) would say as an observer only. And group (3) would say as an active player, at least to the extent that evolution produced humans exactly the way He wanted them to turn out.
At which point, they aren't having a scientific debate at all. If I'm understanding you correctly, your distinction between theistic and regular evolution has nothing to do with the evidence or the scientific process at all, but rather with what people do with the implications of evolution to their own spirituality. If so, tt's interesting...but it's not part of the science of evolution.

Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
"LOL . . . Texas, the State of Cognitive Dissonance . . . Maybe all the other states with creationist leanings will separate form US and form United States of Cognitive Dissonance."
I think it is already being worked on as we speak:
http://christianexodus.org
no joke.

Uber · 25 May 2005
1st why do people humor Heddle? he is always involved in these type of discussions and contributes virtually nothing other than annoyance. Blaming PT for the same things he does. But anyway-- To even discuss 'God' as an intelligent designer or include him/her/it in the discussion one first needs to prove said being exists. Otherwise saying such a being is not only involved-but responsible in said scientific discussion is slightly above lunacy.
Everything I said is consistent with this: 1) There are some who believe in traditional/textbook evolution and who are atheists.
And those who are theists, whatever 'textbook' evolution is, you mean the accepted theory of evolution?
2) There are some who believe in textbook evolution and who are theists. (Personally I think this group exists in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, but I don't deny they exist.)
No any more so than someone who accepts gravity but also accepts people flying in airborne chariots or once dead people ascending into space.
3) There are theistic evolutionists, and this group is different from group (2). They have very different views on how directed evolution was from God, and, I speculated, would make different predictions about the future of our species.
They are just as confused and their speculations no more reliable. The start with an presumed point and proceed from this shaky underpinning. They have an equal amount of cognitive dissonace. In fact one could argue they have even more as they may understand more science and still cling to the blantantly unscientific. Not only cling to it, BUT proceed to let an unproven ascertion color their science.

Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
test

David Heddle · 25 May 2005
It is largely philosophical, but as I said when I asked the hypothetical question in #32050, they would make different predictions as well. In my opinion.

Ed Tayter · 25 May 2005
David Heddle's question from comment 32050
"Is it inevitable, assuming that we don't destroy the planet, that humans will continue to evolve until such time a new species designation is appropriate?. That is, at some future time there will be a species that descended from modern humans that could not successfully breed with modern humans?"
seems less like a good way to distinguish a "theist evolutionist" from an "atheist evolutionist", than to distinguish someone who pulls meaningless questions from their posterior regions to avoid admitting that they don't have an adequate definition of the subject under discussion (theistic evolutionists in the present case), from someone who has anything of value to contribute to the discussion.
After watching Mr. Heddle's performance on several threads, this seems to be his modus opporundi. Does he do this because he likes to engage in argument for the sake of argument, or does he do this because he enjoys twisting the discussion away from its original point (I think that he was the first person on this thread to bring up "theistic evolution"). Whatever his reasons, it seems to be that Mr. Heddle is no arguing in good faith; he draws distinctions without differences, mischaracterizes others comments, insists that he is misunderstood by all other commentors, and attempts to shift the discussion away from any fruitful purpose. In other words it seems like Mr. Heddle is very good at trolling.

roger tang · 25 May 2005
"Secondly, it is patently obvious what I mean by full-bodied evolution. I meant evolution in which God had no role---purely naturalistic---"
This is not a scientific statement; it's a distinction that makes no difference to the conduct of science. Hence, this statement has no purpose on a scientific basis.
Trying to imbue scientific statements with ethical, moral or philosophical weight is the hallmark of a person who doesn't understand the subject.

NastyLurker · 25 May 2005
http://christianexodus.org . . .
— Sir_Toejam
Have allready seen somewhere... Aren't they flatearthers too ?

Chance · 25 May 2005
I just want to know if Heddle has a life given the amount of time he spends posting his nonsense.

David Heddle · 25 May 2005
Chance, you make a good point in a twisted way.
I am done with PT for good. It's been fun, sort of, but definitely a waste of time.
And it's kinda boring since GWW was banned.
Bye now.

386sx · 25 May 2005
“Is it inevitable, assuming that we don’t destroy the planet, that humans will continue to evolve until such time a new species designation is appropriate?. That is, at some future time there will be a species that descended from modern humans that could not successfully breed with modern humans?”
Sounds to me like an interesting question. (Shock and horror, fainting spells, etc.) Does evolution "predict" this? And, if so, is Catholicism "fine" with it?

alienward · 25 May 2005
From the survey:
Q9. Several states are considering mandating the teaching of intelligent design alongside the teaching of evolution. Do you think that schools should: Be required to teach intelligent design 15% Be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design 50% Should be prohibited from teaching intelligent design 35% Q10. Do you believe that intelligent design has legitimacy as science or do you believe it is only a covert way of getting creationism into the schools? legitimate scientific speculation 42% religiously inspired pseudo-science 58%
If 58% of these physicians think ID is pseudo-science, then at least that percent should think ID should be prohibited from classrooms. Why would that not be the case?

Jeff S · 25 May 2005
(My first time posting to PT; be gentle, okay ?)
This thread points out that the creationists (like so many others)
seem unaware of the distinction between medical doctors and
scientists.
Doctors are a swell bunch (I count several among my family and circle
of friends), and I admire their ability to be conversant in huge
amounts of technical lore, and to apply it carefully and responsibnly
in situations that really, really matter. But doctors (clinicians)
are primarily consumers and end-users of scientific information; one
could certainly be an excellent and physician and still be thoroughly
ignorant of and uninterested in the *source* of that vast body of
medical lore. So I absolutely don't want to disparage doctors, but
only to point out that their enterprise is not, in general, what we
call "science".
Scientists (to over-emphasize the distinction, perhaps) have as their
job the discovery, refinement, and sometimes rejection of scientific
lore, regardless of whether it is of any use to anyone. The biggest
payoff is generally the (private) gratification of discovering
something that wasn't known before and/or the (public) recognition for
having done so. So a key strategy in science is to pay attention to
HOW other people go about discovering things. The driving forces of
vanity and jealosy ensure that theories and findings which are
erroneous or poorly supported will be attacked and dragged down into
disrepute whenever possible. (Think back to the "Greed is good"
speech from the movie "Wall Street"...) But there is also a strong
ethical core to science. Any results presented had better be very
well reasoned and/or strongly supported by hard evidence, or your
reputaion will suffer. Pretty much the only means of sharing results
is through respectable journals with strict peer-review practices or
at conferences where listeners are free to raise questions.
Deliberate falsification of data or misrepresentation of any kind is
shameful and generally career-ending.
So the core issue (at least the way I've chosen to spin it) is that
scientists are hugely concerned with HOW information and ideas are
explored, tested, and refuted; often much more than the actual ideas
and information themselves. This issue is highly relevant because it
lies at the heart of the whole creationist fiasco. Creationists
(including stealth creationists) only care about the result, i.e., a
reinforcement of their previously held creation myth. Any means,
however sleazy, may be used to justify the ends. And any other ends,
regardless of the weight of evidence or reason, are simply
unacceptable. Scientists, being human, are cetainly susceptible to
biased preconceptions, stubbornness, and the rest of it. But sooner
or later the force of reason tends to win out.
Two inspiring examples from the world of physics : Albert Einstein,
whose Nobel-prize-winning explanation of the photoelectric effect
ushered in the age of quantum mechanics, had a deep
emotional/aesthetic/quasi-religious conviction that quantum mechanics
*had* to be incomplete, or somehow flawed. He spent half a century
trying BY SCIENTIFIC MEANS to undermine or replace it with a "better"
theory, but the overwhelming weight of evidence and reason forced him
to admit that quantum mechanics was correct as far as it went and that
no other theory could, even in principle, go farther. More recently
(1990's) the whole field of cosmology shifted from a consensus that
the universe was expanding, but that this expansion was slowing down,
to a new consensus (based on evidence) that the expansion is actually
speeding up. This is a HUGE -- and uncomfortable -- change, and
cosmologists are a smart, stubborn, and cantankerous bunch of folks
who certainly didn't just agree with each other out of politeness.
So I think the conclusion of all this for creationists is that :
a) Scientists don't just disagree with you because they "want to",
they disagree with you because, as scientists, they can recognize a
pile of crap and don't mind saying so, EVEN IF IT IS AGAINST THEIR
DEEPLY HELD BELIEF AS CHRISTIANS.
b) Doctors, by and large, are not trained in *doing* science, but only
in applying the results of science to specific (and worthy !) ends.
Touting doctors' opinions about ID vs. evolution is kind of like
asking NBA basketball players or skateboarders their opinions on
Newton's Laws.
c) In particular, if ID were at all compelling or interesting as a
scientific theory, and if the body of doctors polled were in fact
deeply knowlegeable of the process of science and the details of the
evolutionary theory, then acceptance of ID wouldn't correlate with
religious faith. Do Lutherans subscribe more devoutly to Ohms Law ?
Do Catholics reject the Wigner-Eckhardt Theorem ?

neo-anti-luddite · 25 May 2005
I am done with PT for good.
— David Heddle
I give him a week, tops.

Ed Darrell · 25 May 2005
Someone said:
Needless to say, the claims made by the creationists in Topeka - that it is not possible to be a Christian and an advocate of evolution - are false.
Mr. Heddle said:
That may be true, but the repeated allusions on PT that Catholicism is fine with evolution are misleading. Catholicism, as far as official Roman doctrine is concerned, is fine with theistic evolution only.
1. What Pope John-Paul II said, ex cathedra is that evolution is a set of facts, and the theory of evolution has proved workable and cannot be ignored. He said nothing about "theistic" evolution, but instead said that evolution is a subject the faithful may study, so long as it does not deny God. 2. What Darwin said is that evolution occurs after life gets started on Earth. Nothing about God. I just did a quick search of PubMed -- there is not a single paper claiming to deny the existence of God, or Zeus or the Cosmic Muffin, for that matter. There is no legitimate study of evolution in science which would cross John-Paul II's pronouncement. Mr. Heddle is trying to fudge things. The Pope at no time said it is fine to tell falsehoods about science and scientists, which leaves out almost all literature supporting "intelligent design." Yes, the Pope really does like evolution best.

Flint · 25 May 2005
alienward:
If 58% of these physicians think ID is pseudo-science, then at least that percent should think ID should be prohibited from classrooms. Why would that not be the case?
Because the goal of creationists is to get creationism into classrooms. If Jesus must be ignominiously dressed up in scientistic garb to smuggle Him in, then that's what it takes. Make it so. Your error lies in thinking science classes should be limited to science. Creationists disagree with this narrow-minded dogmatism, often violently. Dembski said no science is valid without Jesus Christ at its core.

Steve U. · 25 May 2005
David H.
The time has been compressed and the appreciation of the biochemical complexity of single-celled organisms enhanced by significant amounts since the first shouts of the mantra "given enough time, the unlikely becomes probable."
But of course there was a recent study -- which was directed to your attention explicitly, Mr. Heddle -- which showed (or strongly suggested) that liquid water was present on earth much earlier than previously thought. http://www.freep.com/news/nw/earth9e_20050509.htm http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Earliest%20Piece/Earliest.html
I am done with PT for good.
Not bloody likely!
And it's kinda boring since GWW was banned.
You two were a fun couple.

Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
"I am done with PT for good. It's been fun, sort of, but definitely a waste of time."
"... and they ate robin's minstrels, and there was much rejoicing"
yaaaay.
who is laying odds on whether/when DH will return?

frank schmidt · 25 May 2005
A small but significant error. Ed said:
What Pope John-Paul II said, ex cathedra
He didn't say it ex cathedra which is a specific procedure done when an infallible matter is proclaimed by the Pope. For example, neither the edicts against birth control nor against women priests are ex cathedra statements. Is there a web site like The Crackpot Index for quibblers? And if so, how many points do i get? :)

steve · 25 May 2005
Comment #32128 Posted by David Heddle on May 25, 2005 03:33 PM (e) (s) Chance, you make a good point in a twisted way. I am done with PT for good. It's been fun, sort of, but definitely a waste of time.
I would agree. Dave's arguments have been a waste of time.

Air Bear · 25 May 2005
Prof. Heddle is gone but not forgotten
Is it inevitable, assuming that we don't destroy the planet, that humans will continue to evolve until such time a new species designation is appropriate?. That is, at some future time there will be a species that descended from modern humans that could not successfully breed with modern humans?
I really don't know much about evolutionary theory, but it seems that the answer is obvious. In order for a new species to develop, a subpopulation must be isolated from another subpopulation for a very long time. That's not likely to happen in the human population in the distant future. Maybe if humans colonize another planet ane are left alone (no sexual activity with visitors!) for millions of years. And BTW, Prof. Heddle's conflation of "inevetible" and "possible" shows a sorry lack of grasp of the basics of the philosophy of science. Only a religious believer would say that something is possible, therefore MUST be true. But, sadly, we'll never see how Prof. Heddle would obfuscate these two points.

Henry J · 25 May 2005
Re "legitimate scientific speculation 42%
religiously inspired pseudo-science 58%"
But aren't the ID advocates calling it a "theory" or at least a "hypothesis"? The notion of life having been deliberately engineered is a speculation, but imo to call it a hypothesis requires adding enough details for it to imply something about what we should expect to observe in nature.
Henry

speaker4thedead · 26 May 2005
Re Air Bear (Comment #32182) Modern humans also seem to be attempting to rid the world of evolutionary drive (predator/prey pressures, open ecological niches,disease, etc.)

speaker4thedead · 26 May 2005
I think any future human evolution may be due to geneticists rather than natural selection.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2005
The only evolution a Catholic may affirm, as far as Rome is concerned, is the view that God maintained complete control and absolute sovereignty over his creation. It's a view of evolution as exclusively a secondary cause, and one with a divinely controlled outcome.
That's nice. Since God maintains complete control and absolute sovereignty over his creation, that would mean that weather patterns are also exclusively a secondary cause, and one with a divinely controlled outcome. Alas, I have never ever heard any weather forecaster acknowledge any role for God in the weather, which would seem to make weather forecasting every bit as "atheistic, materialistic, and naturalistic" as the evolution that IDers keep complaining about. So once again I ask you, why is atheism *acceptable* for you in some areas (weather forecasting) but *not* in others (evolution). Could you at least be consistent in your balderdash?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2005
Strip Rome's irrelevant stance away, and for all practical purposes, Rome has endorsed non-theistic evolution.
Just as YOU endorse non-theistic weather forecasting. Why is it that non-theistic weather forecasting doesn't bother you, but non-theistic evolution gets your panties all in a bunch. Why is a-theism acceptable for you in some areas, but not in others.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2005
As for the rest of your comment, I have no clue what you are talking about. I am into physics and try to shun metaphysics.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good one, Davey.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2005
I am done with PT for good.
Liar.

PaulP · 26 May 2005
Dave Heddle:
it is patently obvious what I mean by full-bodied evolution. I meant evolution in which God had no role---purely naturalistic---with the possibility that something other than humans as we are now could have evolved.
Someone who thinks that the fundamental physical laws governing the universe are totally deterministic would also think that whatever happens is inevitable. Even without a creator, humanity would be inevitable. And the Judeo-Christian creator deity would simply have set up our universe's laws and initial conditions to make humanity inevitable - no further intervention being necessary. Since the only physical laws that are even potentially non-deterministic are in quantum mechanics, it is not clear how things would have turned out differently if some of the divine dice-rolling anathema to Einstein had produce different results. Perhaps life would never have arisen at all, any where in the universe. IMHO it is more likely that different versions of our universe as outcomes of non-deterministic quantum processes would be extremely different to ours, rather than similar except for small details.

Man with No Personality · 26 May 2005
I also suspect we haven't seen the last of Mr. Heddle. After all, he's never let his bad arguments, nonexistent logic, and blatant contradictions being noticed stop him before. Why should he now?

Nat Whilk · 27 May 2005
ChaNce apparently doesn't want to answer the question I asked in #32034. Does anyone else want to take a crack at it?

Flint · 27 May 2005
Nat Whilk:
I suspect your question is concerned more with how the claim was phrased (not very clearly) than with what it said.
I'm not sure exactly what the Catholic Church says, and there seems to be some debate as to whether they have accepted everything evolutionary theory proposes and just stuck a "by the way, God inserted a soul during that process sometime back" or whether the Church has reservations in genuine conflict with current theory.
My guess is that from a scientist's view, the Pope accepted evolution and whatever religious mumbo jumbo he tacked on is irrelevant superstition. And from the Pope's view, he's concerned with Divine Guidance and Purpose, and what scientists pay attention to is basically unimportant mechanical details.

Nat Whilk · 27 May 2005
I suspect your question is concerned more with how the claim was phrased (not very clearly) than with what it said.
— Flint
No, it was concerned with what it said.
My guess is that from a scientist's view, the Pope accepted evolution and whatever religious mumbo jumbo he tacked on is irrelevant superstition.
"Irrelevant" and "inconsistent with a stunning amount of scientific evidence" are quite different descriptions, wouldn't you say?

Flint · 27 May 2005
Nat Whilk: I read chance's material differently from you, I guess. I interpret his sentence as follows (with my clarifications added):
Thus, Rome's [new] position is essentially natualistic evo, with a useless addendum meant to reconcile [the modified] doctorine and the stunning amount of scientific evidence inconsistent with their [previous] position.
In other words, the church changed its posture from one of conflict to one of accommodation, in the face of the evidence, the scientific consensus, and the need for the church to stay relevant and not be viewed as unwilling to concede even the most manifestly self-evident. YMMV

Nat Whilk · 27 May 2005
Thus, Rome's [new] position is essentially natualistic evo, with a useless addendum meant to reconcile [the modified] doctorine and the stunning amount of scientific evidence inconsistent with their [previous] position.
— Flint (interpreting ChaNce)
This problem with this "two positions" interpretation is that there is no indication in ChaNce's (unglossed) paragraph that he is talking about more than one position.

Flint · 27 May 2005
Nat Whilk:
You're right. I'm reading this two-position interpretation into the statement so that it makes sense. I *think* it's what he intended.

jaimito · 27 May 2005
The Catholic Church has changed for good and became a force for science, including evolutionary biology. It is time to notice it and stop denigrating it. I am not a Catholic but I can live with their ideas. In any fight, you need allies. Catholics are on our side.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 May 2005
In other words, the church changed its posture from one of conflict to one of accommodation, in the face of the evidence, the scientific consensus, and the need for the church to stay relevant and not be viewed as unwilling to concede even the most manifestly self-evident.
In other words, they finally learned their lesson from that whole "Galileo" thingie. Which the Protestant fundies have not.