Intelligent Design and Miracles

Thanks for the thoughtful essay. My sentiment is also that ID is simply distasteful theology, quite independent of being scientifically vacuous. A problem that ID faces theologically comes from the claim that one can detect special instances of the Designer's action (i.e. "too complex not to have been ID-ed"). Besides being a dubious claim in the first place, if it were true observable phenomena would then be divided into two classes: those special enough that the Designer must have tweaked it and the not-so-special, mundane remainder of observable phenomena. The theological problem is that this claim makes much (most?) of the world we experience unworthy of reverence or appreciation. IMO, a theologically preferable posture is precisely the opposite, i.e. one in which the whole of what we experience - perhaps in particular the mundane - is a vehicle in, with and under which one is graciously sustained by God. Dividing the universe into "designed" and "not special enough to consider designed" implicity denies (theologically) the all-source, all-sustaining acknowledgement of the Creator.

Cheers,

Shaggy

In the case of the claim of a physical resurrection, even if it happened, it was either singular or rare.

The resulting body would be indistinguishable from any other living body, and it had negligible impact on the physical universe.

The fact that the first two theories I mentioned exist, and have considerable support amongst Christians, indicates that the physical fact of resurrection itself may have less impact than the simple belief that the resurrection took place.

Intelligent design suggest a constant, measurable intervention in part of the process. Most miracle claims suggest a singular intervention. One could not produce a "theory of miracles" because they are not supposed to happen with regularity. Miracles are not going to have much impact on science simply because even the claims of miracles are rather rare. We tend to notice miracle claims because they are the exception. Ordinary historical events don't get noticed. Nobody puts a story on the news when they notice a water stain that looks like a water stain. But if it looks like the Virgin Mary, it will be all over. Claims that things are going normally just don't make the news.

"Biology does not study miracles."

It is not intended to provoke arguments over the validity of Christianity or theism in general because that is not the concern of this blog. Hence, we would ask that any comments be restricted to the subject of the theological validity of ID and its relation to science education rather than the rational validity of Christianity.

Of course, one of the key sticking points in the resurrection myth is that the authors seem to have wanted to have it both ways: the disciples handle Jesus' flesh (remember Thomas putting his fingers into the wounds?), and Jesus eats some fish in a flashy display meant to assure the reader that this was no mere ghost--and then Jesus walks through walls!

Paul, writing before the Gospel accounts were completed, describes Jesus as having a spirit body, as noted, that is not flesh and blood...which hardly sounds indistinguishable from a regular old body, as the essay implies. Of course, Paul never actually met Jesus "in the flesh," so perhaps his oxymoronic phrase is excusable. Are Paul's encounters with Jesus mystical and visionary rather than material, face-to-face meetings, on the basis of Paul's phrasing of the kind of Jesus he met? It's not possible to know. Just as it is not possible to know that a god did not set the evolutionary sequence in motion or does not act "behind the scenes" in ways not detectable or distinct from natural processes. What we can state with some confidence is that while nothing in science can ever rule out all possible theisms, science has gone some distance in showing that nothing in observed reality requires, in principle, the kind of miraculous interventions recorded in revealed religions.

Henry -

I think it's clear that ID is, in addition to its scientific vacuity, incompatible with Christianity of almost any form as well.

Although many Christians believe in miracles (I don't, in the usual sense of the term), Christian teaching makes it clear miracles, or other "proofs" of God, are NOT to be expected.

ID essentially claims that God has studded the universe with physical proof of intervention, visible to geniuses like Dembski. The primary goal of this claim is actually, in my view, to discredit the views of political opponents of one particular party and undermine democracy (by falsely labelling all opposition "atheist"). This is mere informed conjecture on my part, however. If this is true, then ID is incompatible with Christianity on this ground (even if it were "accidentally true", acting on such a devious motivation would be unethical), but we can "never know for sure", unless an ID advocate eventually confesses that this was his motivation.

But a secondary goal, one that is inherent in the arguments of ID regardless of the motives of its authors, is to "reassure" believers that they don't need to make any effort or struggle with any doubt, because Dembski and Behe have shown that God had to "design" the human blood clotting system (unless it was "superintelligent aliens", wink, wink, chuckle, chuckle). The implicit message is that ID believers should behave like Christians only because they have physical proof that it will pay off for them; otherwise, why would a desperate search for "proof" be needed? I don't know of any Christian theology that endorses that attitude. It's intensely cynical. "Okay, I'll stop mistreating other people if you can PROVE that I'll get to heaven for it".

A naive well-meaning Christian might believe in ID out of ignorance, assuming that DI "scientists" knew what they were talking about. A sincere Christian with adequate education and time to evaluate the arguments would eventually have to conclude that ID is NOT compatible with Christianity.

Many people would like to equate ID with Christianity. For one thing, ID advocates and certain political groups that label themselves as "Christian" (incorrectly, in my view) promote the idea that ID IS somehow valuable to Christianity. But the fact is that the two aren't really compatible.

On this site, and perhaps elsewhere, opponents of the general concept of Christianity (seldom carefully defined) in all its forms may be tempted to equate ID with Christianity as well. However, it should be understood that they are not the same thing. You can certainly disagree with them both, but that does not make them the same.

science has gone some distance in showing that nothing in observed reality requires, in principle, the kind of miraculous interventions recorded in revealed religions.

I think it's clear that ID is, in addition to its scientific vacuity, incompatible with Christianity of almost any form as well. Although many Christians believe in miracles (I don't, in the usual sense of the term), Christian teaching makes it clear miracles, or other "proofs" of God, are NOT to be expected.

Harold:

The situation is worse than miracles not being expected; they should be positively abhored. Not only do miracles not aid faith, but according to several Bible passages, they simply make things worse for faith:

God's great miracles through Moses filled Egypt with undeniable evidence for the God of Israel (Ex. 9:27). Yet neither the Bible nor history records Egyptian repentance, only good riddance (Ps. 105:38; Ex. 12:35-36; 14:25). Further and more dramatic, consider the effect of those tremendous miracles on Israel. God followed the 10 plagues (Ex. 7:14-12:30) done on behalf of Israel with the parting of the Red Sea (Ex. 14:21-22) and the drowning of the Egyptian army (Ex. 14:26-28). Then daily for 40 years God appeared to the entire nation as a column of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night (Ex. 13:21-22; Num. 14:14; Neh. 9:12; Ps. 105:39). The Lord kept their clothes from wearing out (Deut. 8:4), produced water out of the Rock (Ex. 17:2-6), fed the people with food from heaven (Ex. 16:4-7) and brought meat on demand, literally filling their camp with quail (Num. 11:31-32; Ps. 105:40).

Yet with all this, virtually the entire nation rejected God:

For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? ... Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? Heb. 3:16-17

...and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation... was gone. Num. 32:13

Pretty much the last thing any theist should want is miraculous intervention. It appears to foster the worse kind of unbelief.

TS,

I'm half with you half not with you. I would heartily agree that "science has gone some distance in showing that we have no need for theological critiques of ID.". Just as I would heartily agree that "science has gone some distance in showing that nothing in observed reality requires, in principle, the kind of miraculous interventions recorded in revealed religions.".

However, theological critiques of ID and standard creationism are useful, but not from a scientific perspective. The purpose of this blog expressedly includes critiques of the claims of the antievolution movement. Some of those claims are theological in nature. Thus it is well within the remit of this blog to discuss not only the scientific ramifications of the scientific claims, but also the theological ramifications of the theological claims. Add to that the simple fact that it may be possible to persuade some ID/creationism converts of the vacuosity of their claims by using a theological critique, and really don't see any problem. There is more than one way to skin a cat, just as there is more than one basis to criticise ID creationism, and more than one way to pursue an argument

Now to me personally, as an atheist, I think theological critiques are useless. TO ME. They may, however not be useless TO SOMEONE ELSE. I don't expect that a) everyone has to think like I do, b) come to the same conclusions I have come to by precisely the same route, or c) like/dislike the same things I like/dislike.

The fact of the matter is that whilst I would strongly assert that reason (and thus the scientific) method is the only reliable lens we have to examine the universe through (and I could back this up too!), not everyone thinks this way. Sadly they are wrong. Not because they disagree with me, but because the evidence is against them. Sometimes you have to reach other people on their terms, no matter how daft. That way, they might actually grow to understand things on your terms, rather than just react.

This is why I am half with you, half agin you on this one. Henry has presented an interesting article that may be of use to someone, even if it isn't useful to me or you (it was interesting to me). Simply because it is a religious article does automatically make it totally useless or worthy of scorn.

ts (not Tim S), me boyo, take a deep breath. Have a sip of camomile. Think happy thoughts. Better? I thought so.

Now, let't get to the heart of the matter. As Genie Scott and Glen Branch have pointed out, creationists since Bryan repeat three mantras: (1) Evolution isn't real science. (2)Evolution is incompatible with religion. (3)It's only fair to teach both sides. That these statements are bold-faced lies does not obviate the fact that they are useful to the fundies. It is important to counter all these directly and indirectly, and in a way that does not alienate the polity we are trying to win over. The success of science (not just evolution) depends on it.

(1) We have a natural advantage here. Why do you think the YEC'ers have to show Adam and Eve with a (hebivorous) dinosaur? They recognize the power of the image for science, and the way in which it resonates with kids. On the other hand, we all need to do a much better job of showing what science is, and how that definition fits evolution. Think Mr. Wizard. Or Beekman. Or local science museums.

(2) The only way that the creationists can defend this statement is by defining all evolution-believers as "non-Christian" and non-Christian as "irreligious," thereby winning their internal war against Catholics, Orthodox, mainstream Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Quakers, Unitarians, etc., etc. This is our wedge, and we need to hammer it in at every opportunity. Your and others' personal opinions about definitions, validity, logical consistency, etc., of (a)theism are irrelevant to this effort.

Religious people are not religious because of a supreme act of willful irrationality; they are religious because they see evidence of God, whether it's evidence of design, beauty, family love, or something else. Anti-creationists cannot allow themselves to be sucked into the trap you are so artfully laying out. If your purpose is not to defend evolution but to rant on atheism, please go to the many sites that are devoted to this topic.

(3) Again, if the debate is over theism vs. atheism, then it will be necessary to teach both sides, and we will be on an endless loop. If we are able to recast it into science vs. non-science, then we can win. Not everyone but enough so that we can get back to the important stuff: education and discovery.

ts -

"Well, it's quite obvious that Christian IDists subscribe to a form of Christianity that doesn't accept that little bit of dogma, so this argument of yours is vacuous, like virtually all theological argument"

As usual, you take a small snippet out of context, and ignore the overall message.

The point is that Christianity, even as defined by ID advocates, is incompatible with ID.

While in theory someone might exist who would say "my interpretation of Christianity allows me to lie about science, especially to school children and naive lay people, in an effort to trick others into believing that the existence of my particular God has been 'proven', and therefore I support ID", in practice, virtually no-one would agree with that position. Even if some ID advocate did advance such a statement, which is most unlikely, it would not be accepted as a valid interpretation of Christianity by theologians or the public at large.

Although Christianity is admittedly diverse, certain behaviors are so clearly in violation of Christian ethics that a "theological" claim to the contrary would be nonsensical. Killing a stranger on the street for the existential thrill of it, for example. At a less eggregious level, the claim that lying about testable, measurable physical reality in order to trick people is "Christian" is nonsensical.

Some people do claim to be Christian, but behave in ways that make a mockery of a claim, and this happens a good deal at the DI. It has happened in far more serious ways throughout history. But an example of someone hypocritically claiming to be Christian is not the same thing as someone holding a theologic view. If someone claims to be a secular humanist, but then violates the rights and dignity of another human being, this does not mean that doing so is a valid interpretation of secular humanism. It means that the claim to be a secular humanist in the first place was false.

It is true that ID can be dismissed scientifically, without reference to theology or ethics. However, the fact that it is incompatible with Christianity is valid as well. Why should its false claim to being "Christian" go unchallenged.

I rather like it that critiques such as this appear in PT. When it is shown that ID is ridiculous both scientifically and theologically, it's that much easier to convince misguided school boards (who are, after all, the ID proponent's major target) that ID is bogus.

I've been wondering for many years how creationists (of any self-label) can continue to call themselves Christian and adhere to a religion which demands faith, while at the same time seeking to undermine the need for faith itself. After all, if you can prove your claims scientifically, haven't you just made faith superfluous?

Despite some picky quibbles above, we have here a good distinction between what might be called religious miracles, communicating some point to certain people, and behind the scenes engineering because natural processes aren't quite good enough.

Other theological problems:
That chemist Behe discovering God in his own image. Is it blasphemy?
The Designer of life on earth and unspecified features of the universe isn't God? Is the Designer a previously unknown and un Biblical entity between God and creation? Or is the Designer above God?

But we know who they really mean. They think their Designer is the Christian God. Really? Nothing in the Bible about flagella. The God of the DI is God of the gaps, based on what we allegedly don't know, not on revelation.

As usual, you take a small snippet out of context, and ignore the overall message.

The point is that Christianity, even as defined by ID advocates, is incompatible with ID.

While in theory someone might exist who would say "my interpretation of Christianity allows me to lie about science,

However, the fact that it is incompatible with Christianity is valid as well.

When it is shown that ID is ridiculous both scientifically and theologically, it's that much easier to convince misguided school boards (who are, after all, the ID proponent's major target) that ID is bogus.

Simply because it is a religious article does automatically make it totally useless or worthy of scorn.

— Louis

ts (not Tim S), me boyo, take a deep breath. Have a sip of camomile. Think happy thoughts. Better? I thought so.

— frank schmidt

"[if] a string of constant miracles were needed for each turn of the cell cycle or each flicker of a cilium, the hand of God would be written directly into every living thing - his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakable. Such findings might confirm our faith, but they would also undermine our independence. How could we fairly choose between God and man when the presence and the power of the divine so obviously and so literally controlled our every breath? . . . In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.

such patronizing comments don't make me receptive to what you have to say.

Might I suggest that there would be considerably less bilious acrimony in the comment section in threads such as have been posted in the last few days if people would kindly knock it off with the amphiboly already? This is really freshman intro to logic stuff.

"ID is theologically incompatible with Christianity."

True AND False.

"ID is theologically incompatible with SOME Christianity."

True.

"ID is theologically incompatible with ALL Christianity."

False.

"Evolution is incompatible with Christianity."

True AND false.

"Evolution is incompatible with SOME Christianity."

True.

"Evolution is incompatible with ALL Christianity."

False.

Is ID interventionism "bad" theology? I would suggest that this is another meaningless and hopelessly unanswerable question. While I appreciate the rhetorical and political utility of using this as a "reverse wedge", the plain fact is that ID is only "bad" theology for SOME sects of theism, and I don't see how any intellectual struggle can be won by calling it "bad" to people according to whose theology it is a logical necessity -- unfortunately, such people appear to comprise the bulk of the ID movement.

his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakable. Such findings might confirm our faith, but they would also undermine our independence. How could we fairly choose between God and man when the presence and the power of the divine so obviously and so literally controlled our every breath?

Miller gets lost on theology, really lost when making the leap from existence of God to the Christian God he was raised with but this has been enumerated in many forums.

He says:
'his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakable. Such findings might confirm our faith, but they would also undermine our independence. How could we fairly choose between God and man when the presence and the power of the divine so obviously and so literally controlled our every breath? '

How would it undermine our independence? You would have hard evidence that God exists. It would provide for an informed choice. And then he sets up a false dicotomy, choosing between God and man? If you had God standing before you it would make the choice at least evidential. As it is all you are really doing is choosing man or man. what this man says about God or that man says about God. You simply don't have enough evidence to make the other choice real.

then he says:
'evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.'

Why? Why would an all powerful creator HAVE to do it this way. Again it's a logical fallacy. And needless to say what one religion considers moral another doesn't so your right back at square one with this baloney.

such patronizing comments don't make me receptive to what you have to say. As if I were expecting it. Are you sure you're not a troll?

This is an interesting twist to say the least. Generally I have heard skeptics of evolution critisized for having a religious problem with it, yet who is using religion as a weapon here?

This is an interesting twist to say the least. Generally I have heard skeptics of evolution critisized for having a religious problem with it, yet who is using religion as a weapon here?

— L. T. Paladin

L.T. Paladin,

Visited your website. Alot of incoherent thought over there and I'm a Christian. Your reference of the nutty JP Holding and his halfbaked articles will be your undoing. I can't even believe I wrote that nuts name on this distinguished website.

Particuarlly about the survival of the religion. You could just as easily place any religion into that article.

Despite some picky quibbles above, we have here a good distinction between what might be called religious miracles, communicating some point to certain people, and behind the scenes engineering because natural processes aren't quite good enough.

— Pete Dunkelberg

Other theological problems: That chemist Behe discovering God in his own image. Is it blasphemy?

— Pete Dunkelberg

If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to see it, did God push it over?

If for example Jesus was resurrected, the act itself, however singular and miraculous, would be meaningless to the world if no one knew. The nature of the resurrection was indeed only of relevance because it was said that Jesus appeared to people after he "was risen", and thus the communication of an appearance or knowledge of his existence post-death was the "miracle". In this manner, it is the perception, without much criterion for evaluation, that determines the miraculous nature of an event. Application of the miracle was applied afterward, but not from Jesus it seems but his followers: It was said not by Jesus but by Johns the Baptist and the Evangelist that Jesus was the Son of God, of miraculous birth, so that his mere existence and acts were miraculous. This provides that communication, not action, becomes the conveyer of a miracle.

Perhaps someone here can help me find the flaw in the following logical progression.

If God intervened in the course of evolution, as ID advocates claim, does it not follow that in the absence of the interventions nature would have taken a different course? Otherwise, why the interventions? That being the case, does it not follow that said interventions must constitute a break or discontinuity in the laws of nature? As such, should not these interventions be scientifically detectable?

Perhaps our knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature or of the conditions at the time are too incomplete or deficient to achieve this detection. But then the claim of ID folks to have scientifically ascertained Godly intervention leads to a real bind. If there were interventions and they did detect them, they must have detected violations of the laws of nature (as embodied by science). What laws were violated? Can they tell us? If there were interventions and they cannot identify them, that must be based on ignorance of science, so they cannot claim to have discovered them scientifically. And if the laws of nature were not violated, there was no real intervention.

The example of a God- inspired thought not being detectable as Godly intervention because people have imaginative thoughts all the time, is not very impressive. The brain is a complicated electrochemical apparatus subject to the laws of nature. We still have a lot to learn about its operation but in principle, given enough data about the conditions inside a brain, the laws of nature should predict what thoughts will occur. Again, our inability to detect God's intervention is based only on our ignorance, something that is decreasing with every passing day.

Another example that comes to mind is the problematic evolution of sexual reproduction. How did male and female genders evolve parallel to each other if partially developed sexual organs are of no use until both types are fully functional? (I recall reading about this from an evolutionary point of view, but don't remember the details. If anyone here can help refresh my memory would be appreciated.) So this area is ripe for Godly intervention. According to some translations of the story of Adam and Eve in the original Hebrew version of the Bible, God provides the necessary intervention. Not by taking a "rib" (that is just another mistranslation of the Hebrew "tzela" which almost always means "side of" or "characteristic of") but by creating XY and XX pairs of chromosomes for males and females, respectively, so that it appears as if a "side" of one of these chromosomes has been removed from the male. Of course, if this is the real intent of the Bible it MUST be the word of God since none of this was known thousands of years ago. (For further reading on this I recommend Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF and, oh, before I forget, I did work as editor on this book). Are there enough gaps in our knowledge to make room for such intervention?

Finally, why not just propose that the universe and the laws of nature were originally designed intelligently so that no further interventions were necessary? Is an ominipotent creator incapble of doing so?

I strongly request that poster ts be banned from further contributions.

Although he has only once crossed the line into frank "dirty language", as far as I know, his comments are mainly non-contributory. As there is no valid content to balance their obsessively hostile, emotionally immature, and uncivil nature, I suggest that he be banned. Behavior has consequences, even on the internet.

Carol, your conception of God is a god of the gaps. You are finding room for God in the gaps in scientific knowledge. That is a very bad strategy, as such gaps tend to be filled.

TS,

Ahem right back atcha! Reading for comprehension not your strong suit TS? Try reading my post again, and then try reading the blog description on the main page.

Here, I'll lay out the relevant bit:

"The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

Note the comma between the words "movement" and "defend". Also note that a) some of the claims of the antievolution movement are theological in nature (read any Gish, Morris or Hovind), b) that the disclaimer does not exclude discussion of the theological claims of the antievolution movement.

While you and I agree that ONE (the main one I would guess) of the points of ID and the wedge is to displace secular science, it's certainly not its ONLY point. One of the other points of these (pseudo)creationist movements (including ID) is to establish a specific theological interpretation of specific religious works. The Wedge document is fairly explicit on precisely what it wishes to acheive. To claim that SOME of what ID/Wedge wishes to acheive is not based on a specific theology is counter to the available evidence.

Also, ID is not the only antievolution movement, nor are the claims of ID the only antievolution claims. This is how it is relevant to the conversations in this blog, and when raised in a seperate thread, it is up to contributors whether or not they participate. If you dislike theological debates, then don't participate. I personally won't particpate to any great extent in a theological debate because, like you, I find them vacuous and useless, and I have nothing particualrly insightful to contribute. But it isn't for me to decide what other people wish to discuss within the express remit of this site.

Criticising ID on theological grounds does not equate to (or even logically allow by "fair play") theological criticism of science. If ID were science (which it is demonstrably not) then this might be a valid point. ID is, to partly quote Dembski, "the Logos theology of John the Bapist...". In this and many other ways the theological underpinnings of ID are plain for all to see. It is possible therefore to critique ID on the grounds of how and why it is espoused, i.e. theology. Like I have said several times, this is not a useful intellectual way to critique ID, but it may serve to allow certain people who are not yet capable of, or open to, scientific reasoning to understand that ID (and its ilk) are actually damaging to their religion as well as to a wider variety of social and intellectual things.

It is only to someone who considers ID scientific that theological criticism of ID promotes the idea that science shouldn't be limited to naturalistic explanation. Since the people that think ID scientific are either its proponents, or those people who are ignorant of the facts, and they already think that science shouldn't be limited to naturalistic explanation, your argument fails. These people already assume (wrongly) that science should admit non-naturalistic explanations.

ts

Did you miss this?

Ahem right back atcha! Reading for comprehension not your strong suit TS?

The scientific and technical aspects of ID are assessable without considering religion. The political aspects of ID are only understandable in the light of religion (are there any other groups -- have there ever been any other groups -- pressing for exposure in schools for purely scientific reasons?). The religious aspects of ID are probably incompatible with mainstream Christian dogma, but then so many strands of Christianity are mutually incompatible I doubt this is significant. People will pick and choose which aspects of Christianty they want to believe, just as they always have done, and the day someone invents a mathematical filter for determining which bits of theology are sufficiently unlikely to have evolved by chance, I'll eat the Pope's tiara.

R

Did you miss this?

TS,

You did not claim it was worthy of scorn, you actually scorned the argument and the approach. I was, and indeed am, disagreeing with you on that basis. You don't need to claim that it's worthy of scorn if what you do is scorn it. Not only that, but quoting me sans context STILL doesn't prove your point. Neither does quoting one tiny part of a longer argument.

You did indeed give your reasons for why you thought the approach was poor, and I and others have disagreed with some of them. Would you care to address the substance of those disagreements?

I think Neufeld's post is exactly what is needed on PT. Otherwise, PT becomes merely another atheist echo chamber, in which the steady chant of "naturalistic explanation" loses all perspective. If science is so weak that a "fair play" attack on it will have devastating cultural impact then, I say, it's about time we engaged in the theological message of good science. Personally, after recent encounters with some of the regular atheist kibizters, I have little faith in atheists being capable of sustaining a defense of science by themselves.

< in which the steady chant of "naturalistic explanation" loses all perspective>

See this is what is silly. Givesomething that is provably supernatural and not just some idea you pull out of your rear end and we can then discuss non naturalistic alternatives. But until that time you are just blowing smoke.

Or alternatively once religion comes to an agreement on exactly what religion believes it's place in this discussion is pointless.

There are millions of educated people of religious faith in the U.S. that are just as disgusted with creationism and intelligent design as the some of the more vocal atheistic supporters of evolutionary biology; it would be foolish to cast aside their support. In my opinion, it will be these people of faith who end up winning this debate for us in the public arena; as they are the ones who are capable of demonstrating that faith and evolution are compatible to the 90% of people in America that are religious, and are not about to change their minds.

The negative theological implications of ID are definitely worth listening to for this reason alone.

Finally, why not just propose that the universe and the laws of nature were originally designed intelligently so that no further interventions were necessary?

— carol clouser

Is an ominipotent creator incapble of doing so?

— carol clouser

This is the logical principle of parsimony, known in this context as Occam's Razor. The basic idea is that if theory A is just as accurate as theory B but requires more terms, then those extra terms must be redundant. This will be a familiar concept to any mathematician; if you have two equations for a curve-fit and both are equally accurate, then the one which accomplishes this task with the least number of terms is superior. For example, since God is inscrutable, the inclusion of God cannot give a scientific theory any predictive capabilities that it didn't have before. Therefore, God is a redundant term, and that's why it is never found in any legitimate scientific theory.

— Michael Wong of www.creationtheory.org

'In my opinion, it will be these people of faith who end up winning this debate for us in the public arena; as they are the ones who are capable of demonstrating that faith and evolution are compatible to the 90% of people in America that are religious'

90%(debatable stat) of Americans are religious, thats how many profess a God belief. Being religious and having a God belief are two entirely different things.

I'm a theist and a Christian, but honestly evolution gives me trouble if I'm honest about it.

TS, You did not claim it was worthy of scorn, you actually scorned the argument and the approach. I was, and indeed am, disagreeing with you on that basis. You don't need to claim that it's worthy of scorn if what you do is scorn it. Not only that, but quoting me sans context STILL doesn't prove your point. Neither does quoting one tiny part of a longer argument.

— Louis

Would you care to address the substance of those disagreements?

I think Neufeld's post is exactly what is needed on PT. Otherwise, PT becomes merely another atheist echo chamber, in which the steady chant of "naturalistic explanation" loses all perspective. If science is so weak that a "fair play" attack on it will have devastating cultural impact then, I say, it's about time we engaged in the theological message of good science.

— Lurker

"provably supernatural"?

Why must the supernatural be provable when science is understood to be unprovable? Or are you under the notion that only things which are provable can either exist or have meaning?

"not just some idea you pull out of your rear end"

So do you agree that all theistic evolutionists are defective thinkers for subscribing to a religion that they pulled out of their rear end? Why do you want the support of TEists in evolution or evolutionary research if they are such defective thinkers?

"we can then discuss non naturalistic alternatives"

Do you only discuss things that you can prove and has not been pulled out of a rear end? More to the point, what is the point of discussing what is proven?

"Or alternatively once religion comes to an agreement on exactly what religion believes it's place in this discussion is pointless."

This is absurd, coming from one of the atheists who cannot, most of the time, agree whether they are strong, weak, or agnostic. Whether they are objective moralists, subjective moralists, or amoralists. Whether they subscribe to spiritualism, materialism, or nihilism.

I retract my accusation that Chance was an atheist. I failed to read his post before posting mine. My apologies.

No, Lurker, it is you who have no idea what you are talking about when discussing atheism with an atheist.

But since you've displayed all the signs of being an agent provocateur (French for "despicable troll"), from now on I'll simply ignore your dishonest baiting.

More to the point, what is the point of discussing what is proven?

— Lurker

Why must the supernatural be provable when science is understood to be unprovable?

— Lurker

Hmm, I am reviled by atheists on a theological thread. I must be in the right place.

Aureola Nominee, let me ask you, is Henry Neufeld lying about his reconciliation with evolution (evidence of absence of his God) and God? Or is he merely a defective thinker?

Oh, and by the way...

"As usual you display your offsensive arrogance. I am not obliged to respond to every word you write, or to restrict myself to what you think is important"

Translation - I will quote mine whatever you write, taking snippets out of context that I find easy to superficially contradict, rather than addressing the point.

What an irrational, illogical cop-out! Of course you are obliged to address the actual point someone is making, not a snipped out quote distorted into irrelevance, if you want your posts to have any meaning.

And I don't know if there's a term in logic for "the pot calling the kettle stainless steel", but if there is, this royally qualifies.

At any rate, I strongly urge that this poster be banned, on the grounds that his contributions are persistently non-contributory, disruptive, obsessively voluminous, and exceptionally uncivil.

"It is not understood to me that science in unprovable. That doesn't make any sense. But this is just my interpretation."

A scientific theory cannot logically preclude the possibility of a falsifying example that overturns it. That is what I mean when I say that "science is unprovable". What do you think it means that science is provable, Miah?

I must say, I have been startled by need many atheists feel to defend the rational nature of their position, and the apparent need many of them feel to argue that it is the only possible rational position.

Most of my friends are either overt atheists, or so disinterested in religion of any type that they don't even stop to consider themselves atheists. It never occurred to me, until the last few weeks, that anyone would be defensive about the perfectly rational nature of this particular philosophic view. Previously, the only people I ever saw railing about the "necessity" of believing in God were creationists, and I was astounded that anyone would ever suggest that it was or should be "necessary to believe in God" (or bother to implicitly defend against this nonsense assertion).

I don't agree that atheism is the "only rational" view, but that's a long convoluted philosophical discussion, best suited for other venues. Atheism, by any reasonable definition, is a rational viewpoint, no-one is denying that.

There are two points related to religion that ARE relevant to this forum. ONE is that many religious leaders state that their religious views are not threatened by science, and that they endorse good science education.

http://www.mindandlife.org/hhdl.science_section.html

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htm

Relevant point number TWO is that ID advocates always claim to be defenders of Christianity, sometimes in a sneaky rather than overt way, and all promoters of ID in science education claim to be acting in defense of Christianity, but ID is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity, even broadly defined, on two grounds - A) It is, in essence, a cynical demand for physical "proof" of God, something that Christianity almost never endorses and B) It is fundamentally dishonest - it is not true - the claims that magic is required for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum or the human blood clotting system, that statistics or information theory somehow argue against biological evolution, etc, are false claims - telling someone that these are valid scientific views is false.

This may be most relevant to Christians, but it is relevant to all opponents of ID as well. ID is being forced into schools, on the explicit or implicit grounds that it is more compatible with Christianity than mainstream science. Yet the opposite is the case. It is INCOMPATIBLE with almost all interpretations of Christianity (even Biblical literalism argues against dishonesty and demands for "proof"), whereas mainstream science is perfectly compatible with many mainstream Christian traditions, according to Christian theologians, as linked above.

TS,

Ok, I'll withdraw the "automatically". I was in error, my bad, mea culpa.

As for what Harold wants, let's just say I don't agree with him and leave that there. Certainly don't appear to capitulate for fear of my joining that chorus. I'm more than capable of dealing with dissent and ideas I don't like.

I think you forget that we're probably singing from the same hymn sheet (joke intended) viz the utility of theological arguments to you, me and people like us. And even with dear old Lurker sticking in a very poorly thought out oar, the point still remains. Of course some people will think precisely as you described, I never disagreed that some people would think this way, just that all would.

Like many people have mentioned here several times, the majority of people in the majority if nations on this planet claim to be (or at least think of themselves as) religious. Whether that "religiousness" is doctrinaire, dogmatic, rational or simply wishful thinking is irrelevant. The simple fact is that large numbers of people self-identify with religions of various depths and types. Calling them all benighted idiots for believing poppycock (no matter how true or untrue that might be) and dealing with them as if that were the case will alienate the vast majority. Not only that, but a large number of people either aren't interested in or capable of the level of reasoning required for some scientific discourse. I wish it were the case that everyone was capable and interested, but it simply isn't.

A multifaceted debunking of various creationist proposals will serve to mop up those people for whom a single pronged attack would fail. For some the theological arguments (perhaps simply comparing and contrasting the implications of ID/creationism and their professed faith) will work, for some it will not. For some it will encourage them to further depths of irrational nonsense (see Lurker). The point being that no one strategy is 100% effective. I think an honest reading (by you) of this thread will show you that, whilst there are the Lurkers of this world, there are also the Henrys, i.e. people who can appreciate and follow both a scientific and a theological argument and distinguish between them. The evidence is there for you to read.

By the way, the inner snark in me couldn't help but be aware that you STILL haven't addressed the substance of the points made by me or indeed anyone else. Accusations of quibbling are best directed at those people who focus on one word to the illogical extent that the meaning of a sentence is lost, see "automatic".

Harold,

Without wishing to cause undue distress: what other rational (in the technical, philosophical sense, not the colloquial sense) viewpoints are there than ones based on the available, reliable, reproducible evidence?

The only one I can think of is weak atheism (surprise surprise!). Deism is a faith position, as indeed are all stripes of pantheism, panentheism, theism, and agnosticism. Strong atheism is also ostensibly a faith position, but it has better support. N.B. Strong atheism as a bare claim is, on the face of it, as irrational (technical sense) as theism. Both are claims based on very incomplete/non-existant evidence. The one thing strong atheism has got going for it is that there is a world of evidence that points away from any of the deities described by humanity thus far. All the evidence we have shows us a universe exactly as would be expected without a deity or deities. But as Bacon showed us, just because all you have seen are white swans, this doesn't preclude a black swan being around the next corner. However, in this case, my guess would be that there isn't a black swan around the next corner....but I've been wrong before!

At any rate, I strongly urge that this poster be banned, on the grounds that his contributions are persistently non-contributory, disruptive, obsessively voluminous, and exceptionally uncivil.

— harold

A scientific theory cannot logically preclude the possibility of a falsifying example that overturns it.That is what I mean when I say that "science is unprovable". What do you think it means that science is provable, Miah?

— Lurker

Yes, I wrote hastily. I referred to science when I meant its ideas/hypothesis/theories. My general point was that it is special pleading to demand different standards for equally rational epistemologies.

"I already indicated what (IMHO) science is."

You mean by this?

"Science was created (IMHO) to do away with the notions of myths, legends, fairy tails, and etc. So by it's own right, anything once considerd supernatural that can be explained by rational thought (e.g. lightning and thunder) only benefits mankind."

Well, I am already in the doghouse with a lot of atheists, so I hope you're not another one, Miah. But, I disagee with the notion that succesful scientific explanations necessarily displaces the supernatural, nor that it was "created" for that purpose. Yes, as a mode of thinking successful scientific theories certainly do not require supernatural hypotheses. And yes, certain natural hypotheses proposed by religious dogma can be falsified scientifically. But as you mention, models can be modified to fit new information or evidence. There is absolutely no reason why a religious (supernatural) understanding of the world cannot be so modified to make room for naturalistic explanations. (Note: I am not arguing whether such a model is preferable.) Is Neufeld's post, after all, not an example?

Well, I am already in the doghouse with a lot of atheists, so I hope you're not another one, Miah.

— Lurker

There is absolutely no reason why a religious (supernatural) understanding of the world cannot be so modified to make room for naturalistic explanations.

— Lurker

"I am an dislexic agnostic insomniac."
Oh good, a fellow agnostic. Whew. Well, give me a chance. I may piss you off yet.

Miah, I will defer on the role of religion in impeding or advancing mankind to the historians. Here, for instance is a debate (on an atheist site) on this subject: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92865 I reserve judgment.

Nevertheless, historical role of religion on science was not really my point. The relationship between science and religion since the "dark ages" has evolved. Consider, for instance, the oft cited position of the Catholic Church on evolution. My point thus is that a religious outlook need not be static with respect to increasing knowledge.

"I think all the doctors of the world would object to your idea of seeing no reason why we can have religious (supernatural) understanding of the natrualistic world!"

Well, you may be disappointed to read about this survey then: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/225740.shtml

Then there's alternative medicine, and wholistic medicine, and prayer... I do not agree with these approaches, but I bring them up, because doctors (like many other groups in modern society) do still struggle with a materialist-only outlook. Not only that, in a world where extension of life expectancy brings all sorts of end-of-life issues, which often involve difficult ethical dilemmas, doctors cannot rely solely on materialistic paradigms.

But I digress. You may be right that religion has hindered science. Granting that, however, does not obligate religious people to insist that their religion necessarily continue to inhibit science. Some do. But it is not necessary. And I further believe that

As mentioned previously and with much labor any discussion of the supernatural is just superflous.

In many ways it is meaningless, it has no standing at all in any avenue of proof. So bringing it into any discussion other than the mainly political tool mentioned above is unproductive.

'But, I disagee with the notion that succesful scientific explanations necessarily displaces the supernatural'

You can disagree all you want, until you prove the supernatural even exists, you might as well be arguing for Santa Claus and fairies.

'Henry Neufeld lying about his reconciliation with evolution (evidence of absence of his God) and God? Or is he merely a defective thinker?'

Lying no, defective thinker? Who can say.

I am opposed to banning anyone, unless they become totally disruptive. TS has not achieved that status yet. He is all bark and no bite, sniping on the sidelines in an ignorable manner.

King David in Psalms pleads "may sins disappear from the earth". The sages of the Talmud notice that he does not plead for "sinners" to disappear, but for "sins" to disappear. The lesson to be drawn, say they, is that our goal should be to get sinners to improve their behavior and not that they be eliminated or defeated.

This is not to compare TS to a sinner, God forbid. I am not implying that AT ALL. But let us hope he will improve his demeanor here.

Nevertheless, historical role of religion on science was not really my point. The relationship between science and religion since the "dark ages" has evolved. Consider, for instance, the oft cited position of the Catholic Church on evolution. My point thus is that a religious outlook need not be static with respect to increasing knowledge.

— Lurker

Well, you may be disappointed to read about this survey then: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/225740.shtml...

— Lurker

'Then there's alternative medicine, and wholistic medicine, and prayer... I do not agree with these approaches, but I bring them up, because doctors (like many other groups in modern society) do still struggle with a materialist-only outlook.'

You are confusing personal wishful thinking with treatments that actually work. Doctors don't struggle with a 'materialist-only outlook' whatever that is, not the good ones anyway. The good ones search for treatments and cures that work. The goofy ones and frauds, who I wouldn't take my dog to, attempt such quackery as alternative medicine and holistic alternatives which have zero credibility. All decent doctors seek to comfort their patients.

'Not only that, in a world where extension of life expectancy brings all sorts of end-of-life issues, which often involve difficult ethical dilemmas, doctors cannot rely solely on materialistic paradigms'

Really? Why? What is a 'materialistic paradigm'? Is it that a patient may die?

King David in Psalms pleads "may sins disappear from the earth". The sages of the Talmud notice that he does not plead for "sinners" to disappear, but for "sins" to disappear. The lesson to be drawn, say they, is that our goal should be to get sinners to improve their behavior and not that they be eliminated or defeated.

— carol clouser

"I am an dislexic agnostic insomniac."
Oh good, a fellow agnostic. Whew. Well, give me a chance. I may piss you off yet.

Miah, I will defer on the role of religion in impeding or advancing mankind to the historians. Here, for instance is a debate (on an atheist site) on this subject: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92865 I reserve judgment.

Nevertheless, historical role of religion on science was not really my point. The relationship between science and religion since the "dark ages" has evolved. Consider, for instance, the oft cited position of the Catholic Church on evolution. My point thus is that a religious outlook need not be static with respect to increasing knowledge.

"I think all the doctors of the world would object to your idea of seeing no reason why we can have religious (supernatural) understanding of the natrualistic world!"

Well, you may be disappointed to read about this survey then: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/225740.shtml

Then there's alternative medicine, and wholistic medicine, and prayer... I do not agree with these approaches (nor that the survey is the final say), but I bring them up, because doctors (like many other groups in modern society) do supplement a materialist program with religious/spiritual elements. Consider for instance that in a world where extension of life expectancy brings all sorts of end-of-life issues, which often involve difficult ethical dilemmas, doctors cannot rely solely on materialist paradigms in dealing with dying patients. Even when potential treatments or clinical trials are available, doctors are often faced with issues of whether they should continue to offer and pursue a materialistic protocol. Is withdrawal of treatment scientifically valid? Then there are all the scientific research problems that ethicists are debating: human cloning,

You may be right that religion has hindered science. Granting that, however, does not obligate religious people to insist that their religion necessarily continue to inhibit science. Some do. But it is perhaps more important to support those who think such conflict is not necessary. I see Nefueld's post as evidence of this.

I apologize for duplicate post... I didn't realize my previous post as I was editing got sent.

"I can't believe you even brought this up...HAHA Ok, so you want me to think that just because the Catholic Church is finally accepting evolution is an indication that the relationship between science and religion since the "dark ages" has evolved??? WOW this time it only took 150 years to see that "GOD" was wrong!"

Whoever said evolution, whether cultural or biological, was a quick process??

"Also, religion is in no way qualified to partake in science. Expecially when that religion is trying to push itself on those who see harm in its implications as a science. If anything religion can be discussed along side philosophy. But NOT science. The two are not compatable."

I am not what gives you leave to make such sweeping generalizations here. Nor do I understand. Are you saying all religions push itself on others to see science as harmful? You have provided not much in terms of evidence of this.

"Really? Why? What is a 'materialistic paradigm'? Is it that a patient may die?"

I was editing this section before I accidentally submitted. My point is that a materialistic treatment program at some point runs its course. But in modern medicine, even before all options are exhausted, a decision is sometimes made not to continue with the program. How does one scientifically validate that decision?

"Doctors don't struggle with a 'materialist-only outlook' whatever that is, not the good ones anyway."

This is most definitely a matter of opinion. Doctors are uniquely in the position to understand that it is not all about the drugs and therapeutic protocols. For instance, patients with religious outlooks definitely report a preference dealing with doctors whom they can openly share their spirituality with. Consider: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/356 What should an atheist doctor say to such a patient?

"The goofy ones and frauds, who I wouldn't take my dog to, attempt such quackery as alternative medicine and holistic alternatives which have zero credibility."

Which explains this, of course: http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0821016.htm

You definitely have a choice of doctor, I do not deny you that. I am merely claiming that your preference need not be shared by all.

Then there are all the scientific research problems that ethicists are debating: human cloning,

— Lurker

You may be right that religion has hindered science. Granting that, however, does not obligate religious people to insist that their religion necessarily continue to inhibit science. Some do.

— Lurker

But it is perhaps more important to support those who think such conflict is not necessary. I see Nefueld's post as evidence of this.

— Lurker

Whoever said evolution, whether cultural or biological, was a quick process??

— Lurker

I am not what gives you leave to make such sweeping generalizations here. Nor do I understand. Are you saying all religions push itself on others to see science as harmful? You have provided not much in terms of evidence of this.

— Lurker

Well, Miah, I honestly I tried my best to piss you off. Unfortunately, with so much agreement, I see I have failed miserably.

Thanks for the replies.

Furthermore I said that any religion that pushes itself on others and claims scientific credibility is harmless.

Well, Miah, I honestly I tried my best to piss you off. Unfortunately, with so much agreement, I see I have failed miserably. Thanks for the replies.

— Lurker

Of course some people will think precisely as you described, I never disagreed that some people would think this way, just that all would.

— Louis

By the way, the inner snark in me couldn't help but be aware that you STILL haven't addressed the substance of the points made by me or indeed anyone else. Accusations of quibbling are best directed at those people who focus on one word to the illogical extent that the meaning of a sentence is lost, see "automatic".

At any rate, I strongly urge that this poster be banned, on the grounds that his contributions are persistently non-contributory, disruptive, obsessively voluminous, and exceptionally uncivil.

— Harold

... I'm especially dismayed at the implication by one PT poster (whom I once admired) that "ideological atheists" should be kicked out (from what?) because their views run contrary to some percieved strategy. (And what, exactly, is an "ideological atheist"?) ...

harold wrote: At any rate, I strongly urge that this poster be banned, on the grounds that his contributions are persistently non-contributory, disruptive, obsessively voluminous, and exceptionally uncivil. Voluminous? Pots, kettles, harold?

— Alan

Great article. Reminds me of some of the essays from Is God a Creationist? I think this sort of discussion is great because it exposes the falseness of the science/faith dichotomy that Creationists and IDers try to foist on us.

Well, I just can't allow someone to put words in my mouth. So, let me describe my position on this matter.

I do think "naturalist arguments" have failed politically. The survey citing low numbers of adults believing evolution rather supports the point. I do, however, advocate ramping up the religious message regarding reconciliation between science and certain religions. My feeling is that the present tension is in fact so high that when religious people are faced with the false dichotomy of choosing science or religion, they choose religion as the easy way out. The reason, I think, is that not all forms of knowledge has equal weight for all people, at any given time. The details of evolution are simply irrelevant for most people... just like the details of thermodynamics, algebraic topology, or astrophysics. To believe that a straightforward scientific defense of evolution is not going to tune people out would simply be naive. If it were possible, however, to reduce the tension, I think we reduce the need (however irrational) to feel threatened by science. That does not mean that I expect a sudden flood of converts to evolutionary theory. But, I would expect less attacks on science. For those people already apathetic to science, I imagine they will likely continue to ignore the scientific data about evolution. This notion is consistent with data from pop quizzes of adults, where many can't tell how long a solar year approximately is, or whether the earth orbits the sun (incidentally, once subjects of religious contention). Despite this, few are currently mobilizing around geocentrism. We can't solve scientific illiteracy given a growing public (and very Christian) distrust of science as a hidden materialist/naturalist agenda. But deal with the latter, and we may have a better chance of addressing the former. There is not an order of precedence here. We can do both at the same time. But I do not think we can afford to wait longer on addressing the distrust.

If we are truly concerned about confusing the public with a theological argument for peaceful coexistence with science, we should be equally concerned about confusing the public with blatant atheistic scientism. An atheist cannot have his cake and eat it too. I am not advocating that theologians now be included in peer review of scientific evidence, or that they put on lab coats. I do however like to see theists play a greater role in publicizing science. For every Dawkins, Gould, Shermer, and Dennett, why don't we expect a proportionate number of Ken Millers, reflecting current demographics? My solution also would encourage knowledgeable and fair-minded theists to oppose strenuously the conclusion that science necessitates scientism and materialism. This means sometimes having to address arguments that faith in God in the absence of scientific evidence is automatically incoherent, or that is a sign of defective thinking and lack of intellectual integrity. I hear evangelical Christians (for instance the IDists) do these things quite well. Unfortunately, most of them don't get the science. Thus, somehow, such apologetics are inappropriately linked with anti-science arguments, when they need not be. Failure to put out a balanced message puts a severe credibility problem on theistic scientists in controversial subjects.

I understand the atheist wants to promote his view that science and religion are incompatible and to express indignation at being told to bite their lips. But at the same time, he would really prefer that theologians stay silent about religious compatibility with or support of science. To the atheist, it is intolerable to have to see science and religion so juxtaposed. Quite conveniently, the fundamentalists would also like to think science and religion are incompatible. They are outraged that they are being told to bite their lips in public, secular forums. And they would really prefer those theologians not say anything at all about science, much less the possibility of its reconciliation with religion. With so much agreement, why does it surprise anyone that our target audience seems to care nothing about their mutual disagreement -- namely the scientific facts?

Ah, I forgot to correct a possible misconception, which really should go without saying -- I am not arguing that we swap scientific arguments completely with theological ones. Not at all. I am merely proposing that we augment the current pro-science defense to deal with the politics. It really is just a proposal, and I do not claim to have the only answer or the right one.

I do however like to see theists play a greater role in publicizing science. For every Dawkins, Gould, Shermer, and Dennett, why don't we expect a proportionate number of Ken Millers, reflecting current demographics?

But at the same time, he would really prefer that theologians stay silent about religious compatibility with or support of science. To the atheist, it is intolerable to have to see science and religion so juxtaposed.

As usual, you take a small snippet out of context, and ignore the overall message.

— Harold

The point is that Christianity, even as defined by ID advocates, is incompatible with ID.

While in theory someone might exist who would say "my interpretation of Christianity allows me to lie about science, especially to school children and naive lay people, in an effort to trick others into believing that the existence of my particular God has been 'proven', and therefore I support ID", in practice, virtually no-one would agree with that position. Even if some ID advocate did advance such a statement, which is most unlikely, it would not be accepted as a valid interpretation of Christianity by theologians or the public at large.

Although Christianity is admittedly diverse, certain behaviors are so clearly in violation of Christian ethics that a "theological" claim to the contrary would be nonsensical. Killing a stranger on the street for the existential thrill of it, for example. At a less eggregious level, the claim that lying about testable, measurable physical reality in order to trick people is "Christian" is nonsensical.

Some people do claim to be Christian, but behave in ways that make a mockery of a claim, and this happens a good deal at the DI.

It has happened in far more serious ways throughout history. But an example of someone hypocritically claiming to be Christian is not the same thing as someone holding a theologic view.

If someone claims to be a secular humanist, but then violates the rights and dignity of another human being, this does not mean that doing so is a valid interpretation of secular humanism.

It means that the claim to be a secular humanist in the first place was false.

It is true that ID can be dismissed scientifically, without reference to theology or ethics.

However, the fact that it is incompatible with Christianity is valid as well.

Why should its false claim to being "Christian" go unchallenged.

Egad TS!

First and foremeost critiquing ID and defending evolutionary biology are not the same thing. I haven't advocated defending science on theological grounds, please desist with the egregious strawman! I know that Lurker and his/her ilk wish for science to be defended on theological grounds, but that is barely relevant to the validity of critiques of ID. As for the political strategy of critiquing ID on a theological basis, it's blisteringly simple. ID IS theological. Evolutionary biology IS NOT. This is hardly a difficult point for YOU to grasp, because I am sure you DO actually grasp it. Simply becuase Lurker and his/her buddies don't grasp it does not preclude it being grasped by others. Honestly, you keep galloping off after total irrelevancies.

It is very simple. ID/creationism is theological in nature and basis. ID/creationism makes claims that fall within the purview of science and within the purview of theology. Whilst we are critiquing ID/creationism on a scientific basis by demonstrating that the claims it makes that fall within the purview of science are at odds with reliable reproducible evidence, we can also formulate critiques of those claims that fall within the purview of theology.

Good so far?

It is relatively trivial to demonstrate that there is a distribution of people's interests and abilities. Some people in this distribution will not be interested in the scientific critiques of ID/creationism because they a) are not interested in them or b) are not capable of understanding them. Some subset of these people that are turned off by the scientific critiques for whatever reason will be more interested in, or more capable of understanding, an argument based on theology. If ID/creationism makes theological claims at odds with much of standard theology for a specific denomination, and members of that denomination claim to support ID/creationism, then one way to demonstrate a part of the vacuosity of ID/creationism is to demonstrate the flawed theological claims it makes.

This does not mean that we should cease teaching good science, cease critiquing ID/creationism's claims on a scientific basis. It is simply a statement of different strokes for different folks. Not the kost controversial thing in the world.

The fact that some people will misunderstand/misrepresent/misuse this is actually succor to the case for making a variety of approaches to the problem.

Next part.

I wasn't going to bother, but you appear to be so thorough sanctimonious that I cannot resist. Call it a weakness on my part.

Let me quote you:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/intelligent_des_1.html#c43072

How is the theological validity of ID the concern of this blog? Doesn't this open the door to a claim that the theological validity of science, evolution, materialism, etc. is fair game in a science class, if it's appropriate at an evolutionary science blog?

It's interesting that some people here have been screaming up and down that discussing religion here is terrible and will lose the culture war, and yet one after the other of the articles posted to PT have been focused on religion, which virtually guarantees that religion will be discussed and debated.

You had this explained to you quite clearly and chose not to respond. Oh I know you don't have to respond to every point made, and you may even tacitly agree with some of them, but don't you realise you're doing the Gish Gallop? You bring up a number of tangential and irrelevant points, and then refuse to address refutations of those points, or indeed refutations of anything. I am getting the impression that you are having a fit of pique because someone has the temerity to diagree with you. Please correct me if I am wrong.

By the way, I disagree with those people who say that discussing religion will lose us the culture war, and I even think that atheists should be bolder about confronting religion. That does not mean, or equate to, calling all religious people dumbass idiots. The path to reason, as demonstrated by multitudes of formerly theistic atheists, is fraught with peril. It isn't a smooth transition. Sometimes, just sometimes, we may have to meet people on their terms so that we can gradually (hopefully) bring them around to our terms. Softly softly catchy monkey.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/intelligent_des_1.html#c43077

Indeed, science has gone some distance in showing that we have no need for theological critiques of ID.

Rather depends on who "we" are doesn't it TS? Some people, rightly or wrongly, DO appear to need theological critiques, as has been laboriously established. Rather an out of hand dismissal of Henry's post don't you think. Almost automatic. Could this be due to the pique I mentioned?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/intelligent_des_1.html#c43078

Well, it's quite obvious that Christian IDists subscribe to a form of Christianity that doesn't accept that little bit of dogma, so this argument of yours is vacuous, like virtually all theological argument, because in theology anything goes --- absolutely any proposition whatsoever can be accepted on "faith".

Since you and I both agree that theology is highly ephemeral it is impossible to make the claim that IDists don't subscribe to this dogma. Hello dishonesty, hello cognitive dissonance. These are widely prevalent in extremist religious groups.

Anyway, that "automatic" can be reinstated, I've reconsidered. It wasn't an "ad hominem slap" as you wish it to be, but it referred to your out of hand dismissal of anything Henry had to say simply because it was theological. You then went into a series of irrelevant objections about the relevance of theological criticisms to this blog, which have been refuted, and equally irrelevant objections based on the awesome observation that someone might take theological critiques of ID the wrong way (since they also take scientific critiques the wrong way, should we abandon those? Hmmm perhaps not!).

The ad hominem and strawman are sadly only in your mind. That automatic refers clearly to your dismissal of an argument by virtue of the topic it addresses rather than by virtue of the points made. Twist that anyway you like, but it still comes out as: you're wrong. Simple really.

...or whether the earth orbits the sun (incidentally, once subjects of religious contention). Despite this, few are currently mobilizing around geocentrism.

— Lurker

All scientists should be publicizing and championing science --- scientifically, not theologically.

— ts (not Tim Sandefur)

"You're not one who can speak for atheists."

I don't speak for atheists. I speak about atheists, and so, I report what I have been told in the past few days. I was told that atheists think people who reject disbelief in the absence of evidence are defective thinkers, or display a loss of intellectual integrity -- with specific references to those who hold to evolution as an absence of God's intervention in nature. I was told that atheists think that theists who decline (or fail) atheist inquisitions on evidences of God display a lack of understanding how intellectual inquiry works. If this is not what atheists actually think about theists, then let us hear atheists repudiate these statements. Let's not mince words.

"I imagine that most atheists were happy to see Pope John Paul II announce that evolution is compatible with Catholicism, whether they think it's true or not, but the Pope was not a representative of or speaking for the scientific community. OTOH, atheists (among others) were not at all happy to see Cardinal Schönberg offering his theological views on evolution and "design"."

This is a great example, because it illustrates my strategy potentially works. After Schönberg's message came out, guess what happened: a few theologians challenged him on theological grounds. A lot of scientists challenged him on scientific grounds. And they did do both quite successfully without mixing either, as the Cardinal did. The problem, as I see it, is that the fundamentalist version drowned the voices of reason by sheer volume. Most theologians sat back wringing their hands, reluctant to speak out against the Cardinal. If ever you want the message that the Church is not representative or speaking for the scientific community, you really do need to hear it from both sides, with an amp'd up message. Especially on issues of deeply religious nature, this inherently negative message of the Church surrendering jurisidiction on scientific matters can be poorly interpreted by the faithful. But it need not be. Theologians are supremely qualified to explain why. Not scientists.

"I, as one atheist, have no problem with theologicians speaking in favor of evolution, because evolution should be favored, not because I think that their theological arguments have any validity --- I don't think any theological arguments have any validity, but then one should expect an atheist to think that."

At the same time, one should also not find an atheist credible when making policies on religious issues, just as atheists find theists not ncredible when declaring what are Truths. Unfortunately, for the atheist, the reality is that, except on various Internet forums such as this, atheists are decidedly in the minority. For the majority of the theists, atheist scientists lack credibility on theological grounds, causing them to tune out. But the solution is not to continue to exacerbate the differences by harping on how atheists perceive science and how theists perceive science.

"But if scientists start saying that ID isn't a valid scientific theory and shouldn't be taught in science classes because it's bad theology, don't be surprised if non-theists question that strategy or if it comes back to bite you."

I don't see where this is happening. Even in Neufeld's opening disclaimer: "The purpose of this essay is to offer a critique of intelligent design on theological, rather than scientific, grounds." He even goes on to say, "Hence, we would ask that any comments be restricted to the subject of the theological validity of ID and its relation to science education rather than the rational validity of Christianity." I see a conjunction of topics relating to ID. I do not see an inference from "theological validity of ID" to "its relation to science education." Neufeld's point, as I read it, is that ID presents partly as a theological viewpoint on science. I agree with him that he challenge it on theological grounds precisely because it is equally detrimental to science-religion compatibility to bash theology with scientism. In other words, the answer to "God could not have done it this way" is not to say "God is wrong because science shows us this is the way." This places science directly in challenge with theology. And when faced with such a false dichotomy, uninformed people will make easy irrational decisions.

As for policies coming back to bite us, it is always a risk. Once again, I do not have the answers. I have proposals. But as far as I can see, it is not one that really has been tried. Whereas, I think yours is most definitely status quo, and it does not seem to be going anywhere.

"Why should scientist come to "thier" level? Why should scientist be asked to compromise what they have verified about the universe and all things in it, just to satisfy a religion? It's stupid."

My point is that scientists do not have to come down to geocentrist levels because geocentrists are not mobilizing. For most people, there is just not the same amount of tension between the heliocentric model and religion as between evolution and religion. Not anymore. But, as some surveys show, adults still do get the facts wrong (granted, not in nearly the same numbers as evolution). There are people out there who don't know that the earth goes around the sun. So, I am suspicious that mere indoctrination of scientific facts is sufficient to reduce religious tension.

BTW. Believe it or not, dealing with stupidity is sometimes part of the job description for the scientist. Just ask all those academics having to grade finals every year, while getting paid with 5 digit figures.

"You might be able to convince the others that are not so indoctrinated that some of your arguments are valid. But to me its a worthless endeavor."

I have more faith in human reason, I suppose. But as I argued, my proposals really have not been tried on a consistent basis. It is often easier to naysay and give up in doubt.

My point is that scientists do not have to come down to geocentrist levels because geocentrists are not mobilizing.

— Lurker

I have more faith in human reason,...

— Lurker

"You're not one who can speak for atheists." I don't speak for atheists.

— Lurker

"My feeling is that the present tension is in fact so high that when religious people are faced with the false dichotomy of choosing science or religion, they choose religion as the easy way out. The reason, I think, is that not all forms of knowledge has equal weight for all people, at any given time. The details of evolution are simply irrelevant for most people... just like the details of thermodynamics, algebraic topology, or astrophysics. To believe that a straightforward scientific defense of evolution is not going to tune people out would simply be naive. If it were possible, however, to reduce the tension, I think we reduce the need (however irrational) to feel threatened by science. "

Forgive me for the quote-block, but Lurker, this is an excellent point (harold's too). The multi-post/multi-blog evolution/"religion" discussion that's been going on sometimes seems to have only a tenuous link to reality. It reminds me a bit of what happens on lefty (and presumably righty) political blogs - sometimes people forget a little that their level of political involvement, awareness, and specific views are not the usual, and that no, just because they *want* the world to be a certain way doesn't mean that it has any obligation to listen. Likewise, "them" is not a single category, nor are "they" all mindless morons for not agreeing with everything one thinks!
Most people do not have a particularly large interest in science, although that varies, "religion" just meaning US Christianity still covers a very, very wide range of practices, beliefs, attitudes, etc. This is new? We have to go over this?

I do *think* we should try to make clear the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism - the very distinction that ID rejects (and there was some letter in the paper yesterday about how "Darwinian evolution is not a science that can be proved but a philosophical materialism that is assumed . . . you dodge the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinian evolution," following several earlier Darwinism-is-just-based-on-faith, etc. letters) Not that tons of people are just waiting to hear about philosophical distinctions either, but the basic fact that evolution *is* based on assumptions, the very same assumptions as the rest of science, the same assumptions that we use to to launch spaceships and fight diseases - and that like the rest of science, it doesn't mean you can't believe in God.
But I could be wrong about the importance of this particular approach.

". If this is not what atheists actually think about theists, then let us hear atheists repudiate these statements. "
*raises hand* I repudiate them! I don't believe in God, but man, I am not so . . . let's call it self-confident . . . too insist that anyone who doesn't agree with me must be not only wrong but soft in the head as well! I suspect part of this . . .rather strict . . .brand of atheism is growing up in a more-or-less (very relatively) hostile society, and partly temperment - if they were only religious, they'd be the very kind of believer they describe . .

-Look, if you think "religion" and evolution are completely incompatible, I would never tell you to pretend they are for strategic reasons - that is deeply dishonest - and I won't tell you to stop talking, which is just horrendous, but perhaps examine your beliefs, read up on what "religion" is like and what roles it plays here (some of the folks I've heard sound like they just got dropped in from some Vulcan colony somewhere - and don't expect to help protect science education *using those views* (there may be other ways you can).

Talking about masses or especially sheeple is also tricky, not so much in terms of alienating people, but how it shapes views. C'mon, all of us here aren't all that.

That's what I think.

ts, I apologize for appearing to speak for atheists when it was not my intent. Let that be for the record.

My point has always been that theologians speak about science-religion compatibility, not about science by itself. Further, you did write, "Since that is how science works, I think it muddies the waters for defenders of evolution, even theistic defenders, to do so on theological grounds, or to start getting into arguments, as Harold does, as to what is or is not good theology." If evolution-religion compatibility is not a defence of evolution on theological grounds, then I am afraid I do not see what you mean by defenders of evolution "[doing] so on theological grounds." We have to get this straight, is a theological discussion of compatibility between evolution and religion a theological defense of evolution? I reject the notion that only scientists can be defenders of evolution or good science. If so, then a lot of the kibitzers on this blog really have no point being here.

"*raises hand* I repudiate them! I don't believe in God, but man, I am not so ... let's call it self-confident ... too insist that anyone who doesn't agree with me must be not only wrong but soft in the head as well!"

My goodness, another voice in the dark that does not hate me with all his guts. Now I know I really do suck at trolling PT...

Ok, time to retire for a bit. I do hope the (civil) discussion continues, however.

Lurker,

Your confusing politics with actual results.

you said:
'Which explains this, of course: http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0821016.htm

You definitely have a choice of doctor, I do not deny you that. I am merely claiming that your preference need not be shared by all.'

That wasn't my point. People in need often seek services out of hope. Just because such services exist doesn't make them any less quacky. It's the results that matter, alternative medicines often suck up dolars and precious time patients should be putting into legit medical practices.

'I do however like to see theists play a greater role in publicizing science. For every Dawkins, Gould, Shermer, and Dennett, why don't we expect a proportionate number of Ken Millers, reflecting current demographics'

Whats wrong with Dawkins, Gould, Shermer, and Dennett? It seems to me your just looking to court public opinion rather than actually engage in an intellectual exercise. The aforementioned men present a strong case. Miller does to when it comes to science, then pulls all kinds of stuff out his rear with his theology. But it's his right to do so.

I just don't see how that makes him more palatable than the others. If the others present their case well why should their superstitious views preent or not matter?

self-confident ... too insist that anyone who doesn't agree with me must be not only wrong but soft in the head as well!

if they were only religious, they'd be the very kind of believer they describe . .

but perhaps examine your beliefs, read up on what "religion" is like and what roles it plays here

If evolution-religion compatibility is not a defence of evolution on theological grounds, then I am afraid I do not see what you mean by defenders of evolution "[doing] so on theological grounds."

We have to get this straight, is a theological discussion of compatibility between evolution and religion a theological defense of evolution?

I reject the notion that only scientists can be defenders of evolution or good science.

but perhaps examine your beliefs, read up on what "religion" is like and what roles it plays here...

— Dan S.

Miah, I think you're misreading Dan. He's talking about religion in all its forms, including the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists such as Henry, Harold, Ken Miller, and thousands of other scientists. He's specifically not talking about the religion of anti-evolutionists.

But a theological justification for an empirical theory or conclusion can't possibly be "good science".

— ts (not Tim Sandefur)

Miah, I think you're misreading Dan. He's talking about religion in all its forms, including the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists such as Henry, Harold, Ken Miller, and thousands of other scientists. He's specifically not talking about the religion of anti-evolutionists.

— ts (not Tim Sandefur)

I see no point in religion or God.

the·ol·o·gy The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

— www.dictionary.com

King David in Psalms pleads "may sins disappear from the earth". The sages of the Talmud notice that he does not plead for "sinners" to disappear, but for "sins" to disappear. The lesson to be drawn, say they, is that our goal should be to get sinners to improve their behavior and not that they be eliminated or defeated.

— carol clouser

Psalm 79:9 (KJV) Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.

How can you have a theological discussion or evaluation about evolution without GOD?

Note: The purpose of this essay is to offer a critique of intelligent design on theological, rather than scientific, grounds. It is not intended to provoke arguments over the validity of Christianity or theism in general because that is not the concern of this blog. Hence, we would ask that any comments be restricted to the subject of the theological validity of ID and its relation to science education rather than the rational validity of Christianity. Such discussions are fascinating, but are best left for other fora.

The purpose of this essay is to offer a critique of intelligent design on theological, rather than scientific, grounds.

Hence, we would ask that any comments be restricted to the subject of the theological validity of ID and its relation to science education rather than the rational validity of Christianity.

Thanks to Henry and commenters for a helpful conversation. I am grateful for what I can learn from such a healthy, if occasionally bit abrasive, dialogue.

FWIW, I think it is entirely valid to raise theological objections, if one holds such, to ID precisely because it is on theological appeal that ID continues to be an issue in the public discouse. That it is scientifically vacuous has been demonstrated repeatedly, yet it continues to curry favor as religious/social issue.

Two theological objections to ID seem prominent to me: 1) ID is a fundamentally "god of the gaps" argument - certainly not a theologically wise position to take, and 2) making the claim of ID seems to be minimally hubristic and arguably blasphemous at its core. We are all somehow supposed to be grateful to Behe et al. for their great technocratic prowess to have been able to derive God's existence/action. Talk about scientists elevating themselves to the role of cultural priesthood, what more blatant example is there than a biochemist who assures us that his special knowledge of the complexity of the cell demonstrates God in a way those of us not so specially knowledged have here-to-fore failed to detect?

Given the preponderance of Judeo-Christian affinities within the ID movement, it is telling, IMHO, to recall that the biblical account of the fall of humanity came from a temptation that was all about trying to acquire special knowledge of God. To me, ID looks theologically like a big shiny apple.

"The idea is that believing things for no reason is not rational --- certainly not in the sense that we use the term when we are doing science. "

Part of the problem is the need to so carefully specify terms. And as you point out, we're talking about different modes of thinking - indeed, most people don't do science in the narrow sense, with the possible and partial exception of a course or three in high school. There is a debate as to the intellectual integrity cost, but I think it's one that might be best settled by reference to real world examples. In most cases, I would suspect any cost would be very low because it won't be something that comes up too often.

"And perhaps you should drop the smug self confident patronizing BS."
Perhaps, but I'm entirely serious. I don't imagine I understand more than the very tiniest bit about the range, roles and implications of religious expression, just - say - restricting it to a single faith in my neighborhood. Forget about the U.S!

Ok, I won't go See! Se . . . oh, darn, I said it . . ...

...the biblical account of the fall of humanity came from a temptation...

— Shaggy Maniac

Genesis 2:8-9 & 15-17 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

1) ID is a fundamentally "god of the gaps" argument - certainly not a theologically wise position to take

2) making the claim of ID seems to be minimally hubristic and arguably blasphemous at its core

I thought his referral to the "gap" argument was in reference to the Biblical "Gap Theory". The idea proposed by theologians that there is an unspecified time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 that could allow for the possibility of evolution.

Supposedly this is to account for the fall of Lucifer and his angelic followers to earth and where they messed everything up.

This is a very loose translation of the theory.

Thanks, ts, for the comments.

On the God of the gaps point, I disagree. The ID argument contains no positive criterion for detecting God(designer), rather it is a negative conclusion from ignorance; i.e. "it's (a flagellum, say) so darned complex that we can't explain its origins mechanistically, therefore we conclude (from ignorance) that it was designed." When the mechanistic explanation is discovered, poof the gap closes and takes with it the (negative) inference of a designer (God, of course).

I respect that you may find my description of ID as hubristic and blasphemous as distasteful, but keep in mind those are theological claims applied to a fundamentally theological argument (ID). IDists have shown us no science, so I maintain it is a legitimate response. I don't see how it in anyway gives legitimacy to theological arguments applied to science. It's not science.

Miah - my use of the term Gaps is in the sense that ts has read it. I'd also add that if you read further in the Genesis narrative, it is the serpent (Satan) that profers the temptation to be like God. Prior to the serpent's prodding, there is no indication that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil posed a temptation.

The ID argument contains no positive criterion for detecting God(designer), rather it is a negative conclusion from ignorance

I respect that you may find my description of ID as hubristic and blasphemous as distasteful

I'd also add that if you read further in the Genesis narrative, it is the serpent (Satan) that profers the temptation to be like God. Prior to the serpent's prodding, there is no indication that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil posed a temptation.

— Shaggy Maniac

Thanks, again, for your comments, ts.

Regardless of whether IDists acknowledge it or not, it is a legitimate theological observation (if you allow that there is such a thing) that IDism essentially is a God-of-the-gaps argument; you seem to agree with me (if I read you correctly) in this analysis. The legitimacy of that theological analysis derives from what the IDist claim is, not from whatever the IDists acknowledge. We may simply disagree about whether it is helpful to make that legitimate theological observation, of course. You claim that doing so legitimizes theological objections to science; I don't see how you have demonstrated this to be the case other than to assert it.

Same goes for the science claim by IDists. Simply because an IDist claims that ID is scientific in no way obligates us to do science to disprove their case. Simply pointing out the methodologically non-scientific approach of ID ends the the scientific argument. Once we identify/demonstrate that ID is categorically not science, there is nothing scientific left to say about it one way or the other. If that were enough to counteract the ID movement, then why hasn't it gone away?

Cheers,

Shaggy

To me, ID looks theologically like a big shiny apple.

— Shaggy Maniac

Miah:

Please don't mistake me as an apologist for a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden narrative. While I am interested in the theological message symbolized in the narrative, I am not particularly interested in a straw-man deconstruction of the narrative predicated on an assumed literalist reading of the same.

You are welcome to engage me via email if the former is of interest to you, but I don't really think it is appropriate to continue to do so in this thread. In retrospect, my reference to the Genesis narrative would have been better left off my previous comment altogether.

Cheers,

Shaggy

To judge by its innumerable interpretations, the myth of the fall in Genesis isn't so much an allegory with definable message as a machine for generating an infinite number of messages.

I don't have much time, so I will have to be brief.

ID theologically pegs the irony meter, by raising the Theodicy problem to a whole new level. (Theodicy: An attempt to explain or defend the perfect benevolence of god despite the apparent presence of evil in the world.)

Theodicy with respect to humans asserts evil is inevitable given human free will. With respect to nature (say last year's tsunami), a functioning earth requires natural disasters.

However, taken at face value, ID absolutely requires that God be evil, stupid, or unconcious. This isn't because of the miracles God has wrought, but rather the ones God DIDN'T bother with.

IF God can engineer a flagellum, then certainly God can dispense with wisdom teeth, or the appendix, or hemorrhoids, or the horrific mortality attending childbirth pre-modern medicine, among many design flaws laughable except for their consequences.

Each of those miracles God neglected entailed, pre-modernity, random agony and, all too frequently, early death. No amount of proper belief, or proper actions, could affect one's likelihood of succumbing to such avoidable suffering.

Therefore, ID, in the quest to re-assert Christian supremacy, has invented the weapon to kill the Christian God.

For if we take ID as stipulated, God could have implemented design changes glaringly obvious to any first year engineering student.

But the God of ID would rather revel in widespread, meanginless suffering.

I doubt that will go over well in most congregations.

Miah,

Regarding your question in post #43493, No, I was referring to Psalms 104:35 as does the Talmud I quoted. I know the King James version translates that verse as "The sinners will be consumed" but the original Hebrew clearly says "may sins be ended (or eliminated)". This is just another example of the grotesque and sloppy distortions of the original Hebrew that the popular translations are guilty of. I have been harping about this over here for some time now. It is why I again highly urge all to read IN THE BEGINNING OF by Judah Landa. The widespread perception of conflict between the Bible and Science (not God and science!) is just plain simply NOT TRUE when you translate accurately and correctly.

Regarding your posting #43482, in which you see no reason for God or religion. I cannot believe you mean that. Can you not see that some people insist that their lives be more meaningful than eating, defecating fornicating and then dying? Can you not see that some people have a problem with this awesome universe being here for no real purpose? It just happens to be here? Can you not see that some people have a problem with human beings as merely the latest creature to evolve like all the beasts of the field? How are they supposed to reconcile that with the obvious huge gulf that exists between humans and all other species in terms of self awareness, ability to do calculus, create music, speak languages, have a concience, feel shame, and on and on? If we are mere animals why not allow the strong to devour the weak, the agile to consume (figuratively speaking) the slow, the smart to kill the stupid? Is that not the way almost all species behave? Is that not then the "way of the world", evolution in particular?

I can go on, but I think you get the point. Try to understand the other point of view. Life is complicated and neither you nor anyone else has a monopoly on wisdom. A LITTLE HUMILITY, PLEASE.

"How are they supposed to reconcile that with the obvious huge gulf that exists between humans and all other species in terms of self awareness, ability to do calculus, create music, speak languages, have a concience, feel shame, and on and on?"

there are lots of ways to do this without relying on the idea of God to provide meaning to that.

for example, it has been suggested that the current homo-sapiens evolved from some pretty violent stock, that was selected to eliminate any competition for the niche claimed by intellignet tool users.

the current discovery of "hobbits" (pardon the common name :) ) suggests that there were intellgent other species that existed for long periods when in isolation, which tends to provide support for the above generalization.

in other words, in part the reason there are no other intelligent humanoids apparently extant is that they were wiped out by... us.

a little humility indeed!

to think there is ONLY one possible explanation for our existence is pretty limited, don't you think?

"If we are mere animals why not allow the strong to devour the weak, the agile to consume (figuratively speaking) the slow, the smart to kill the stupid? Is that not the way almost all species behave? Is that not then the "way of the world", evolution in particular?"

that just reflects an extremely poor understanding of the theory of evolution to begin with. evolution theory does not now, nor ever really did, simply say that the strong survive over the weak..

indeed, i can give you numerous examples where this is not the case. fitness does not always relate to absolute strength, you know.

every hear the term inclusive fitness?

I think you would be well served by checking out some of the archives at talk.origins (links are well presented on the front of this very site), to get a better idea of exactly how evolutionary theory works and is presented, before making such broad accusations of the conclusions it makes, Carol.

"If we are mere animals why not allow the strong to devour the weak, the agile to consume (figuratively speaking) the slow, the smart to kill the stupid? Is that not the way almost all species behave? Is that not then the "way of the world", evolution in particular?"

that just reflects an extremely poor understanding of the theory of evolution to begin with. evolution theory does not now, nor ever really did, simply say that the strong survive over the weak..

indeed, i can give you numerous examples where this is not the case. fitness does not always relate to absolute strength, you know.

ever hear the term inclusive fitness?

I think you would be well served by checking out some of the archives at talk.origins (links are well presented on the front of this very site), to get a better idea of exactly how evolutionary theory works and is presented, before making such broad accusations of the conclusions it makes, Carol.

Folks,

If you read my previous post carefully you will discover that I was presenting reasons to Miah for why SOME PEOPLE see reason for the God hypothesis. So spare me the lessons on evolution, which does not provide satisfactory solutions to all the mysteries of the universe (irrespective of which which website you consult).

Does the God hypothesis provide satisfactory answers? It certainly raises a host of new questions. There is room here for reasonable people to disagree. What I don't care for is the "smarter than thou" attitude of some secularists, just as much as I don't care for the "holier than thou" attitude of some religionists.

Can you not see that some people insist that their lives be more meaningful than eating, defecating fornicating and then dying?

Can you not see that some people have a problem with this awesome universe being here for no real purpose? It just happens to be here?

Can you not see that some people have a problem with human beings as merely the latest creature to evolve like all the beasts of the field? How are they supposed to reconcile that with the obvious huge gulf that exists between humans and all other species in terms of self awareness, ability to do calculus, create music, speak languages, have a concience, feel shame, and on and on?

If we are mere animals why not allow the strong to devour the weak, the agile to consume (figuratively speaking) the slow, the smart to kill the stupid?

Is that not the way almost all species behave?

Is that not then the "way of the world", evolution in particular?

If you read my previous post carefully you will discover that I was presenting reasons to Miah for why SOME PEOPLE see reason for the God hypothesis.

"Saying that believers can accept evolution doesn't defend evolution because it doesn't say they have to accept in it. But, as I've already said, if people start talking about accepting evolution being preferable, the only valid way to do that is scientifically."

I do not believe in forcing people to accept any person's Truths. Surely, as an atheist, you would appreciate my position? I do, however, prefer people tolerate my Truths. Sometimes, to achieve tolerance I need to explain that my Truths do not in any way threaten their Truths. That is my notion of a defense as applied to religion and science. It does not require acceptance. I can defend flag-burning as free speech, but that does not mean I have to accept flag-burning. Likewise, I can defend theism and atheism as rational worldviews, but that does not mean I have to accept both simultaneously. So, I can see the Church defending evolution theologically, but not require its adherents to accept it. A most effective defense is to do what Neufeld has done: which is to point out that a poorly conceived attack on evolution threatens Christian doctrines. To reject an attack does not require acceptance, but it certainly goes a long way towards lessening tensions.

BTW, there is tremendous irony in your complaint that people do not speak of preferences scientifically. What exactly is the scientific evidence that preferences be scientifically based?

"When the Pope said that "evolution is more than a hypothesis", he didn't mean a theological hypothesis, he said that its the consequence of science, and scientific arguments, not theological arguments; he did not give a theological argument for evolution."

He did say that truths cannot contradict truths. He also said that there were materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. Finally, he reiterated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith, given certain conditions (which are not matters of science but rather of faith). I grant these are not active arguments for a science, but they are rather a defense of compatibility between a science and religion. That is about as much as I can expect from the Pope. After all, consider the falsifiability of science. Why would the Church commit itself to scientific theories, which may be sometime in the future determined to be wrong, as though they were gospel Truths? The best the Church can do is to reaffirm theological doctrines (yes, they are likely not to be scientifically falsfied), and note that evolution and other scientific theories remain consonant with those doctrines.

"And that's the thing about theology --- any statement can be taken on faith, and theological arguments need not follow the rules of logic, so a theological argument can argue for any conclusion, not just the ones we prefer."

I am not a theologian. And so, I will reserve judgment on theological commentary given by an atheist. I will note, however, that first principles, (be they axioms, assumptions, whatever) need not follow rules of formal logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Non-logical_axioms
To accept an assumption or axiom, is to accept it on the basis of intuition and its perceived fruitfulness in generating knowledge and producing understanding. As such it is self-evident, and taken on "faith".

"Anyone can be a defender of evolution or good science, on scientific grounds. But a theological justification for an empirical theory or conclusion can't possibly be "good science"."

By that same token, if one is not a scientist and not versed with the scientific data, the best defense amounts to a mere appeal to authority. That is also not "good science." Then there are those who are so politically vested in the Creation-Evolution struggle, that they only defend evolution from a secularist perspective, namely wielding evolution as anti-church and state. Their defense is also not "good science." Finally, there are the philosophers of science, who study evolution only in relation to the progression of sciences through history. They are interested in finding those features of evolution in common with other accepted sciences which makes it possible to defend evolution as a "good science." But, when has philosophy and metaphysics become a "good science?"

Well, it goes without saying that I reject the notion that the a defense of evolution can only be achieved at a scientific level. I do believe, however, that acceptance is best achieved at a scientific level. But, as I have noted in other posts, I am striving for much less than acceptance, given the cultural norms. I am striving for tolerance, because without that I don't see acceptance happening.

Is Chance the same poster as GH? I thought I was writing to the latter...

"That wasn't my point. People in need often seek services out of hope. Just because such services exist doesn't make them any less quacky. It's the results that matter, alternative medicines often suck up dolars and precious time patients should be putting into legit medical practices."

What is "legit" medical practice is never that black and white. Though this would be severely out of the scope of this thread, I will point out that your "legit" doctors suck up millions of dollar and precious patient times too, sometimes through unintentional or intentional malpractice. So the ends hardly justifies the label that alternative medicine is "quack." You've got the point, though: it is partly about hope. Clinical trials of research anti-cancer medicine, for instance, is often no more sound medicine than recommending someone try acupuncture. They both provide hope, even if they are both only intermittently successful. At least, acupuncture isn't prone to killing the patient in an attempt to treat him. And, guess what, they are both subject to scientific research at major medical institutions. To tie this diversion back to the thread, though, I will point out the other component of hope in medicine, however, is often spiritual, and thus it is not readily accessible by science. Medicine is currently very murky... "dark ages" type stuff, I am sure, when looked back many years from now.

"Whats wrong with Dawkins, Gould, Shermer, and Dennett? It seems to me your just looking to court public opinion rather than actually engage in an intellectual exercise. The aforementioned men present a strong case. Miller does to when it comes to science, then pulls all kinds of stuff out his rear with his theology. But it's his right to do so."

Yes, I am looking to court public opinion. How to court public opinion is an intellectual exercise. I agree Miller has the right to talk about his theology.

"I just don't see how that makes him more palatable than the others. If the others present their case well why should their superstitious views preent or not matter?"

I don't really know. I think people tend to choose lowest-energy states. Consequently, they really need to be energized to want to maintain a state of perpetual strife. I am hoping that a message that switches off the source of energy driving the tremendous levels of conflict will reduce all the useless heat being generated.

"Ah well, due to Lurker and Miah paying no attention to what the thread was about, it seems that the original participants have gone away."

I have a different theory: ts's continued participation on this thread, despite harold's repeated calls for banning ts, is what drove the original participants away.

TS,

To be brief about the points you make, let me say the following:

The brain size issue does not satisfy MANY PEOPLE because the gap in skills and abilities between humans and ALL other species is totally out of proportion to the ratios involved. And science cannot offer a satisfactory explanation due to our still very much incomplete understanding of how the brain operates. (By the way, don't elephants have large brains? How does their thinking compare to human?)

It is a fact that most organisms survive by preying upon and consuming other organisms. (I can't imagine you would dispute this.) This is usually accomplished by the predator having some advantage over the prey. If we apply this to humans, we come to the conclusion that laws prohibiting such activities go against the "laws of nature". The ethical and moral basis for punishing violators is thus cast into doubt. I recall an interview with a member of the Gambino crime family in which he argued, and I paraphrase here, "It's a dog eat dog world. All animals take advantage of weaker animals when they are hungry. That's life. There is nothing wrong about what I did. I was hungry. It's the way of nature."

The MANY PEOPLE the God hypothesis combined with theological considerations offers some relief here. God created uniquely endowed humans in His image. The "dog eat dog" world is therefore not applicable. And that's why the gap in ability with all other species is so enormous. God created the universe for a purpose and humans play a huge role in that scheme of things (which I will not get into right now).

You may not agree. It raises other questions and objections. But it is based on logic and it satisfies its adherents.

I have a different theory: ts's continued participation on this thread, despite harold's repeated calls for banning ts, is what drove the original participants away.

totally out of proportion to the ratios involved

The brain size issue does not satisfy MANY PEOPLE because the gap in skills and abilities between humans

Carol,

Two words...naturalistic fallacy.

As for respecting the value of religious expression in the lives of many people, I agree, but apparently for very different reasons.

Cheers,

Shaggy

"because the gap in skills and abilities between humans and ALL other species is totally out of proportion to the ratios involved. . . (By the way, don't elephants have large brains? How does their thinking compare to human?)

One important thing to take into account is body mass. Given that, we are way, way out there; our *brain* is way out of proportion to what it should be. Elephants do have large brains (and pretty complex behavior, and some form of communication, though *not* language). They're also a whole lot bigger than us.

Wikipedia page: Brain to body mass ratio,
nifty graph . . .
Although how brains are arranged is also important!

"It is a fact that most organisms survive by preying upon and consuming other organisms. . . . If we apply this to humans . . ."

Um - I don't mean to be rude, but what did you have for dinner last night?

Anyway, science isn't a guide to morality - you have to get that elsewhere. This is arguably one of the basic confusions that cause this whole mess. (Personally, I don't believe that religion is necessary for morality, nor, I fear, is it sufficient - generally it seems that co-religionists may get better treatment, but often people of other religions/sects can be enslaved, ignored, mistreated or slaughtered - but that has to do with matters beyond religion, and I'm getting off track here, so ignore me). But yes, many people feel belief in God i necessary to avoid a worse dog-eat-dog world. Evolution doesn't contradict that.

"My original argument was that coming up with theological arguments for or against evolution . . . is a bad idea,"
But ts, carol raises an important point here. While part of the reason for the low acceptance of evolution is lack of awareness (it needs a p.r. firm!), a big part is ~more or less theological in nature. Additionally, the two combine, resulting, for some, in a barrier to 1) seeking to learn about evolution, 2)being receptive to any information presented about it, and 3) supporting it being taught in school.

I have to admit, though, whatever our differences that can-opener post was a thing of terse beauty.

Of course, the big question is: electric or manual?

"Can you not see that some people insist that their lives be more meaningful than eating, defecating fornicating and then dying?"
I never did understand this whole issue - it seems self-evident that peoples' lives can be more meaningful than that, in a whole number of ways, with or without God; indeed, it would seem that human experience testifies to that - presumably love for others, response to beauty, striving for goals are not dependent on a belief in God, although theycould conceivably be different . . . .but I'm babbling again, someone stop me . . .

Lurker - nice post re: the pope, etc. Interesting point about appeal to authority . . . (although I've seen arguments that it's not a big problem unless the authority is inappropriate in some way - dunno . . .)

You can't bring a stack of burgers to a hot-dog eating contest and expect to win. That's what it comes down to.

Romans 1:18-21 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Psalm 19:1-6 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. [a] 4 Their voice [b] goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

In comment #43075, harold said: Christian teaching makes it clear miracles, or other "proofs" of God, are NOT to be expected.

That's some pretty naive neurology from Carol.

Also besides the theological questions, I would like to ask anyone who has an idea, what evidence actually means. In science, I think we can verify evidence because it is reproducible. If you tell me how you did your experiment (methods), I should be able to get the same results when I do it in my lab. The conclusions can be agreed or disagreed upon, which prompts further hypotheses.

But what about evidence that cannot readily be reproduced, nor are we supposed to expect it to? Such as miracles, for example. There are many sides to my faith, but one is rational, which means it must be based on evidence. But the evidence I experienced can neither be reproduced, or shown to prove beyond doubt that it was God at work. Two people can witness what happened to me, and one can attribute it to chance but the other can see devine action in it. It's a choice. For me, the evidence was reinforced because I felt God's presence around me. But that is not proof for anyone else, because as ts pointed out earlier, it can all be attributed to psychology. While I allow that this is a possibility, I choose to think it was real and not an illusion, since I'm not prone to illusions in general. But it is still possible to make an argument to the contrary, so in the end it is simply my choice to believe.

So my question is this: is there a difference between evidence that may be reproduced, and that which cannot? Or is only evidence that can be reproduced considered valid? Are there different ways to be valid, or only one way? I tend to think my evidence is personal, and that God meant to show himself to me personally, not to endow me with reason to convince others of his existance.

But as has been pointed out here, we are to take Jesus' ressurection as evidence because there were wittnesses. They can't reproduce what happened, but it is written that they saw it. Are there different categories of evidence, and if so, which does this fall into?

I ask that you please respond to the essence of my question, instead of merely ridiculing my experience or pointing out minor flaws. I am in my 7th month of pregnancy and tend to get especially emotional with personal attacks.

I think ts is making an important and valid point.

If one wishes to criticize ID as bad theology, or argue that it's incompatible with "accepted" Christian principles, that's one thing.

But Henry Neufeld's original note explicitly mentions the relationship of that argument to science education. ts argues that it's dangerous and inappropriate to "defend" evolution by attacking ID theologically, and I agree.

True, many people's animosity to evolution might be reduced if they were convinced that it doesn't really conflict with their religion. So there could well be large practical benefits of that approach.

The problem is in seeming to argue that it's OK to teach evolution because it doesn't really conflict with most Christians' beliefs. Even if that's not really the argument being made, there's a high likelihood of it being viewed that way. In other words, making this argument seems to establish that agreement between science and religion is a valid consideration in deciding what to teach as science. That's very wrong, and IMO it's exceptionally dangerous.

The defense for teaching evolution (or anything else) as accepted science is simply that it's well supported by empirical evidence. The defense for rejecting ID as science is that it is not supported by empirical evidence. In fact, if ID could generate adequate empirical evidence, I would support teaching it as science, whether or not it is bad theology. (I don't think ID will generate such evidence, but I don't thinks it's necessarily impossible.)

I have no problem with Christian leaders showing how their faith doesn't conflict with any given body of science. And I can certainly see that such arguments may have an impact on people's receptiveness to science. But I think we should draw the line at characterizing such arguments as a defense of science.

quetzal,

Science is definitely the most important defense of evolution, but as a side-note, why does it hurt to add that evolution has nothing to say about the supernatural, so that students can proceed to learn without fear that their faith is being threatened. The theological question is central to why people reject evolution, so it doesn't do to just simply ignore it, at least in a public teaching context, and especially when directly asked the question by students.

I myself would like to be armed with a solid philosophical argument that I can reply with, and then get on with teaching the science.

Please don't mistake me as an apologist for a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden narrative.You are welcome to engage me via email if the former is of interest to you, but I don't really think it is appropriate to continue to do so in this thread.

— Shaggy Maniac

This is just another example of the grotesque and sloppy distortions of the original Hebrew that the popular translations are guilty of.

— carol clouser

Can you not see that some people insist that their lives be more meaningful than eating, defecating fornicating and then dying?

— carol clouser

Can you not see that some people have a problem with this awesome universe being here for no real purpose?

— carol clouser

Can you not see that some people have a problem with human beings as merely the latest creature to evolve like all the beasts of the field?

— carol clouser

Both you and Miah seem to have missed that the original context was about the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists and other scientists, not evolution deniers.

— ts

In a recent contribution I suggested the possibility of a designer who made such a perfect design that intervention would never be necessary. This is not something that could be demonstrated, nor is it something that I assert as a fact, but it is a design possibility. The point here is that a deist or theist can quite easily both believe that the universe is designed, and yet not believe that the "design" is going to be detectible. Since the whole is designed, there is no necessity that some portions of it look more designed than others. The question is whether this hypothetical theist can allow any kind of intervention in the universe, without also assuming that such intervention can be detected and measured? I am frequently asked how I can oppose intelligent design, and yet see any kind of interaction of God with the universe.

— Henry Neufeld

For different denominations of Christianity, at least, the theological basis of their disagreements usually go back to scripture (the Judeo-Christian Bible). There are some scriptures that suggest we are justified in looking for evidence of God's creation in nature.

— Katarina

This is in response to Harold's claim for proofs or miracles to not be expected as taught from the Bible. I would like to accept that. Can you give me some reference for your assertion?

Matthew 12: 38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: and Matthew 16: 1The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Miah,

Thank you for providing those scriptures. I am always told by people who study scripture that Jesus responded to everyone a little differently. Not that his message was different, but he spoke to their hearts and true intentions, rather than engaging in a debate with them or answering their specific questions. If the people who ask for proof of god with a hostile attitude, that could be the reason Jesus said they would be denied evidence.

These quotes are useful in that they may say God can be selective about whom he shows evidence to. Am I correct? That goes back to my question of subjective (personal) evidence, vs. reproducible evidence.

qetzal, unfortunately for us, the policymakers do not give a whit about a scientific defense of science. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A "proper defense" of evolution in the sense you and ts are using is great. In principle I would completely agree. But a defense of evolution is not equivalent to a defense of evolution teaching. In an ideal world, I guess we would mandate atheist-naturalist scientists sitting on the school board to act as scientific gatekeepers... and oh nevermind, I am dreaming.

I guess there is a point of disagreement on the semantics involved. I have been a bit careless about using "defenses" of evolution and science as though they were meant to be in principle defenses of science. In principle, yes, I agree, the strict notion of a scientific defense of a science lies in its emprical support. In practice, however, especially when dealing with people who are not versed in science, the defense of science may mean the total support given all other considerations. It does not have to be this way. Nor should it be this way. But meanings of words are context dependent, and culture plays a large part in defining the context.

Consider, the scientist writing a proposal to get funded for a research program. He may scream all he wants in defense of his ideas, citing how his research meets the scientific principles of good science. But in the end, his defense will fall short if it does not also meet a slew of political considerations (such as the ethics of his program, the priorities of the grant giver, the theological implications, etc.) As in science curricula, a good scientific defense of science for a grant review is the not the same thing as a good overall defense of a science grant.

Henry wrote: "Note: The purpose of this essay is to offer a critique of intelligent design on theological, rather than scientific, grounds."

Why do we digress into alleged theological support for or arguments against evolution? That may or may not be a useful topic of discussion, but it seems beside the clearly stated purpose of the original post to this discussion which is to consider a theological critique of ID.

See my comment above, #43592.

I critiqued ID on theological grounds, noting that, contrary to its founders' aims, ID absolutely demolishes Christian theology.

That fundamentalist Christians are the primary supporters of ID has convinced me that the primary motivating force of the universe is irony.

Thank you for providing those scriptures.

— Katarina

I am always told by people who study scripture that Jesus responded to everyone a little differently. Not that his message was different, but he spoke to their hearts and true intentions, rather than engaging in a debate with them or answering their specific questions. If the people who ask for proof of god with a hostile attitude, that could be the reason Jesus said they would be denied evidence.

— Katarina

These quotes are useful in that they may say God can be selective about whom he shows evidence to. Am I correct? That goes back to my question of subjective (personal) evidence, vs. reproducible evidence.

— Katarina

[W]hy does it hurt to add that evolution has nothing to say about the supernatural, so that students can proceed to learn without fear that their faith is being threatened[?]

— Katarina

I guess there is a point of disagreement on the semantics involved.

— Lurker

Henry wrote: "Note: The purpose of this essay is to offer a critique of intelligent design on theological, rather than scientific, grounds." Why do we digress into alleged theological support for or arguments against evolution? That may or may not be a useful topic of discussion, but it seems beside the clearly stated purpose of the original post to this discussion which is to consider a theological critique of ID.

— Shaggy Maniac

[W]e would ask that any comments be restricted to the subject of the theological validity of ID and its relation to science education....

why does it hurt to add that evolution has nothing to say about the supernatural, so that students can proceed to learn without fear that their faith is being threatened

A largish prayer study has already been done in the US (around the time of the twin tower attack because events after that interfered with the end of it). It failed to find any significant results for prayer. The ones who wanted to believe wriggled a lot about things nearly being significant but the fact is that they failed to meet the statistical standard. A documentary about it has been aired in the UK at least twice (though I can't be precise about when or remember whether they were exactly the same one).

The brain size issue does not satisfy MANY PEOPLE because the gap in skills and abilities between humans and ALL other species is totally out of proportion to the ratios involved. And science cannot offer a satisfactory explanation due to our still very much incomplete understanding of how the brain operates.

— Carol

Both you and Miah seem to have missed that the original context was about the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists and other scientists, not evolution deniers. In his first sentence alone I see that since there is a perfect design that requires no intervention so (IMHO) it precludes theistic evolution all together. Am I wrong to think that a ³perfect´ design would not require any modification over time?

— Miah

I think ts is making an important and valid point.

— qetzal

In fact, if ID could generate adequate empirical evidence, I would support teaching it as science, whether or not it is bad theology.

why does it hurt to add that evolution has nothing to say about the supernatural, so that students can proceed to learn without fear that their faith is being threatened

— Katarina

I ask that you please respond to the essence of my question, instead of merely ridiculing my experience or pointing out minor flaws.

I don't agree with this logic. The idea that any supreme being would choose who sees "it" and who doesn't would only cause people to doubt what they saw because it impresses upon them that someone else that doesn't see "it" isn't worthy. It would seem benefitial to a supreme being that if he did indeed exist to show us all, point blank and without prejudice.

Furthermore, these type of people, when shown evidence wouldn't have believed it anyway...so it would do no good to give them evidence in the first place. Jesus or even God is not denying them the evidence...they are denying themselves the evidence.

If you agree with me on the points I made then it would only seem evident that the atheist would be first targeted for miracles and signs and wonders by God. The ones that wouldn't see it would be right-wing extremest.

it is also noteworthy that Jesus was a bigot and his doctrine supported these views, as with his disciples. So really he wasn't a full blown humanitarian. And that is how it was in that day...so it is no surprise to see this. (Please note, I am not advocating bigotry...just making a note of it!) There is a huge debate as to Jesus' supposed racism, but I have not found scriptural evidence to support this.

(BTW contratulations on the preganancy...Children are such wonderful things.)

It doesn't hurt, but this is not a theological argument for or against evolution, it is entirely neutral -- and it isn't a theological argument.

..science tells us that much of what is held to be supernatural can be explained, so that the basis for belief in the supernatural is undermined.

You said that such a claim is unwarranted -- a profoundly anti-scientific position.

..according to that science you are misattributing your experiences, and coming to mistaken conclusions as to their implications, via well understood human psychological mechanisms such as selective perception. Science says there is a natural explanation for the origin of species, and there is a natural explanation for your prayers appearing to be answered.

As I have noted before, subjective evidence can be dismissed by natural causes, or understanding the complexities of our brain.

Is verifiable truth the only possible truth?

It is sad and disturbing that so few people seem able to grasp such a simple and basic point.

Is verifiable truth the only possible truth?

SEF,

Since science has the highest standard of evidence, does it follow that only scientific evidence can be relied on? Or would that depend on the nature of the question one is asking? Can science be applied to all questions?

I don't think it's as simple as distinguishing the "why" from the "what," "when," and "how." Evolution explains why invasive species destroy their environment. The germ theory explains why one has certain symptoms after being invaded by a pathogenic bacteria. So the "why" questions aren't exempt. But perhaps CERTAIN "why" questions are, I don't know.

So what is exempt? I am trying to explore the possibility that subjective evidence may be exempt. While psychology has much to say about it, I don't see how what it says confirms or denies whether God was involved in the experience. I still don't see how psychology can determine the difference between a brain's reaction to feeling the presence of God, and a brain's illusion of the presence of God. Or is there a method that I don't know about, by which this can be done? I really don't think it's that precise of a science, not that I blame it, the brain is a very complex organ.

Another category that may be exempt are simple chance events, as I've mentioned before. Things that are unpredictable to a high degree of certainty. A simple example is which part of the chromosome will get damaged by radiation, or mistakes in gene replication. All things that are beyond our predictive powers, and aren't getting any more predictable with time. If God is behind those chance events, working in a hidden way to intervene but in a revealing way when he chooses to individuals or groups of individuals, that might not make for such a weak little god of the gaps. It is at least, a logical possibility. I am not making an argument for a benevolent god or an evil sadistic god, and this doesn't help me. It is a much broader question.

I don't know about arguing that ID is theologically unsound, but let me just echo Lurker and repeat that the issue here isn't *really* about the science for most people. This has to be addressed out in the public square, along (but perhaps separately) with the actual science, in some fashion, by somebody. It seems to me that to think we can get anywhere on this issue otherwise is extremely dubious. Do we all agree with this?

It is sad and disturbing that so few people seem able to grasp such a simple and basic point. That's a rather outrageous and insulting assumption. Even limiting it to the people reading and contributing to this thread

I don't know about arguing that ID is theologically unsound, but let me just echo Lurker and repeat that the issue here isn't *really* about the science for most people. This has to be addressed out in the public square, along (but perhaps separately) with the actual science, in some fashion, by somebody. It seems to me that to think we can get anywhere on this issue otherwise is extremely dubious. Do we all agree with this?

Can science be applied to all questions?

I still don't see how psychology can determine the difference between a brain's reaction to feeling the presence of God, and a brain's illusion of the presence of God. Or is there a method that I don't know about, by which this can be done?

which part of the chromosome will get damaged by radiation

Pretending god tampers at that level doesn't help them predict or distinguish anything in the slightest. So it's not science.

However, that still wouldn't work for turning a random sense of a supernatural event having occurred from a subjective experience into an objective one

TS,

BTW, The problem you presented about science being able to explain long held supernatural beliefs is still in my mind. Maybe it can be solved if what I proposed actually works out as sound logic. That is, that there are areas not subject to scientific scrutiny at all, if they fall into these categories:

a) random events that cannot be predicted,
b) subjective events that cannot be probed either because
studying the brain cannot reveal whether or not God was present, or simply because people choose to perceive different things when presented with evidence which is not reproducible.

And furthermore, that those categories make enough room for God to do whatever the heck he pleases, and to resemble the God of the Bible.

I leave the possibility open that psychology and neurology working together may someday solve the problem, but I am not optimistic.

"I think it should be addressed in the ways that it has been addressed: . . ."

That was a sweet little summary. I don't know if it addresses many people's main concerns? Of course, it's possible, as more or less mentioned above, that anybody who would listen to any sort of theological-ish stuff* already is on our side . . .

* and thinking about it, I pretty much am thinking just - look, religion & science complementary, isn't insisting on scientific *proof* ignoring faith, etc.

Hi TS:

Since I have valued your perspective, please permit me to point you back to my comment #43561. If it is of interest to you to do so, I would appreciate your response.

Cheers,

Shaggy

those categories make enough room for God to do whatever the heck he pleases, and to resemble the God of the Bible.

Sigh. Perhaps it would be easier in loglan than in English. I didn't say anything about theistic evolution, I referred to theistic evolutionists --- evolutionists who are theists. Perhaps I should have said theist evolutionists. Of course Henry doesn't think the design requires any (Godly) modification over time --- that was the whole point of his article!

— ts

Joshua 10:11-14 (New King James Version) 11 And it happened, as they fled before Israel and were on the descent of Beth Horon, that the LORD cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword. 12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." 13 So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14 And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the LORD heeded the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.

No, because claims are made of that version of god which go against physical evidence (eg the stuff in Genesis).

The level of intervention then required to cover that up also requires an incredibly dishonest god.

Look, I cannot reconcile everything in the Bible with scientific findings. That is just too lofty of a goal, especially Noah's flood. I have no idea what to make of that, some people say perhaps it was local. I don't know everything, but it seems clear, at least, that the God of the Bible is an intervening God.

The God of the Bible is not easy to understand, but I still don't see how my version contradicts him. I do see how Henry's version would.

— Katarina

The question is whether this hypothetical theist can allow any kind of intervention in the universe, without also assuming that such intervention can be detected and measured?

— Henry

...the God of the Bible would most definatly be measured and detected today because there would be massive miracles indicating his existance even today.

it would even be MORE evident for those who deny the existence of such a God.

these type of people, when shown evidence wouldn't have believed it anyway...so it would do no good to give them evidence in the first place.

Notice too, that the only people he refused to debate, or answer specific questions were those that were so indoctrinated into the Old Testament belief system that they wouldn't have listened to him anyway. He very much despised these people, calling them snakes, vipers, and all such foul verbalities of the day. Pretty much the same way Fundamentalist, KKK, and other "right-wing" extremest organizations are treated today by those who use a little more intuition and intellegence. Furthermore, these type of people, when shown evidence wouldn't have believed it anyway...so it would do no good to give them evidence in the first place. Jesus or even God is not denying them the evidence...they are denying themselves the evidence.

I understand.

But how can you be sure the atheists would be any more receptive than anyone else? Are atheists more receptive than fundamental Christians?

Can't generalize, but it would seem to me less likely for someone who has rejected the idea of God on a rational basis to subsequently accept the idea of him once shown evidence that is anything but scientific (i.e. the highest standard of certainty, i.e. reproducible).

If God leaves some wiggle room for choice, instead of leaving the proof open to scientific scrutiny, the atheist would still be able to reason his way out of believing, as is his prerogative.

What if he doesn't WANT to be measured and detected, at least not in a way that would provide 100% certainty? What if he only wants to be detected in a way that leaves the choice open, because there isn't 100% certianty? It is also a possibility that after Jesus's visit to our humble planet, the way God deals with the world changes, it is a new phase of his plan.

— Katarina

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

But how can you be sure the atheists would be any more receptive than anyone else? Are atheists more receptive than fundamental Christians?

— Katarina

Can't generalize, but it would seem to me less likely for someone who has rejected the idea of God on a rational basis to subsequently accept the idea of him once shown evidence that is anything but scientific (i.e. the highest standard of certainty, i.e. reproducible).

— Katarina

If God leaves some wiggle room for choice, instead of leaving the proof open to scientific scrutiny, the atheist would still be able to reason his way out of believing, as is his prerogative.

— Katarina

Miah,

Thanks for your consideration of my argument and your views. Much appreciated.

Still not sure that I suscribe to your vision of a hateful God of the Bible, but I will keep it in mind.

1 Corinthians 13:4 (New International Version) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

your vision of a hateful God of the Bible

PS In case it isn't clear: that isn't to say that you can't make up your own god. There's world-wide precedent for that and nothing else after all! The only bits I seriously object to are the dishonest pretences that a given person's god is the same as some other person's god in defiance of the evidence and the evil things humans do using their (combined) gods as excuses. If humans want to be evil, I don't think they should get away with blaming their imaginary friend for it; or re-label evil as good because they claim their imaginary friend is the biggest one.

Anything else is your own personal fantasy - and it is then dishonest for you to pretend that the Bible supports your fantasy of a god.

Anything else is your own personal fantasy - and it is then dishonest for you to pretend that the Bible supports your fantasy of a god.

But the character of the God of the Bible seems a debatable issue. That is why I say people have different visions.

Steviepinhead, good point. I am not sure that I would go as far as to say that each person is entitled to their own vision of the God of the Bible. I was just trying to leave the issue of the goodness/badness of God's character aside for the moment, as I am not qualified to discuss it, nor have I come to a final decision about it.

The description of God's dealings with people in the Old Testament can certainly be harsh, and cause us to draw negative conclusions about his character. However, the authors of the Bible claim he is still good. C.S. Lewis describes the character of God as being good, but untamed. I am just not qualified to speak on it, myself, but I know the issue is debated among theologans.

To repeat, I am more concerned about scriptures that would either support or reject the notion that the God of the Bible would want to be revealed with a scientific level of certainty. I would like to make the argument that his character goes against this, since the argument is for separating science from religious conviction, but I am not myself certain that this argument is in line with what the Bible says about God. I was hoping the folk at PT could help, but maybe it would be more fruitful to ask someone on a Christian blog.

Regardless of whether IDists acknowledge it or not, it is a legitimate theological observation (if you allow that there is such a thing) that IDism essentially is a God-of-the-gaps argument; you seem to agree with me (if I read you correctly) in this analysis. The legitimacy of that theological analysis derives from what the IDist claim is, not from whatever the IDists acknowledge. We may simply disagree about whether it is helpful to make that legitimate theological observation, of course. You claim that doing so legitimizes theological objections to science; I don't see how you have demonstrated this to be the case other than to assert it.

— Shaggy Maniac

TS might agree this point, but if the predictions that had been established that could account for a World Flood, or even a local flood, and there was found evidence to support this; AND it passed scientific scrutiny...then atheist would have no choice but to agree with it.

I was talking about the evidence of a flood as is written by Genesis. If say the ark was found. Fossils that spiral out from Mt. Aarat that would be consistant with the flood theory. And any fossil evidence dated that would be consistant with the flood theory.

I wasn't trying to imply that it would convince an aethiest to agree that it was the work of God or anything supernatural.

Cause even then it wouldn't prove anything other than a guy built a huge boat, loaded up some animals and crashed into a mountain.

Wether God told him to do it would be irrelevant.

BTW ts, thank you for posting that link for fallacies.

I have seen many that I need to work on.

I really do appreciate it.

Reading them right now.

Wether God told him to do it would be irrelevant.

"TS might agree this point, but if the predictions that had been established that could account for a World Flood, or even a local flood, and there was found evidence to support this; AND it passed scientific scrutiny...then atheist would have no choice but to agree with it."

what ridiculous speculation. There has been for decades sufficient evidence in the geologic record to indicate that this speculation could never be supported, period.

talk about wishful thinking.

er, clarifying, i am referring to a global flood, not a local one.

Katerina, Miah, and others:

A couple of points, if I may.

First, you are working from the wrong book. The original, authentic and real Bible is, by the recognition of all knowledgable theologians of all faiths, the ancient Hebrew Bible. Other books are poor and distorted translations, some with add-ons written by virulent bigots with agendas of their own. And I must tell you I do not at all recognize your depiction of God in the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible was the only Bible for thousands of years. It is only recently, in the last few centuries, that it has been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) and then into English and other languages. Then came the add-ons, the so called "new" testament.

You (Miah) asked why scholars have not fixed the translations. Well, some of them have been working in that direction. (I have repeatedly called attention here to Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, and Robert Alter's THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES also comes to mind.) But who should do this? The Jews have the Hebrew Bible, which they rightfully consider to be their Bible, and see no reason to fix other people's self-created problems. The Christian's prefer not to be reminded of the true Jewish origins of their Bible. So that is where things stand.

A few tip-of-the-iceberg examples pertaining to some points made here. The Hebrew Bible does not anywhere refer to God as "jealous". It is, with some notable exceptions, addressed to the Israelites, not the entire world. The Israelites willingly, after the exodus, declare "we shall listen and obey" without ANY threats to prompt them. The story of creation in Genesis does NOT, repeat NOT, contradict ANY tenet of science, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY, so long as it is translated accurately and correctly. You may refuse to educate yourselves about this and endlessly repeat the mistaken assertions, but that changes not the facts on the ground, so to speak, one whit.

A point about God's universe. May I try an example. I occassionally play chess with some friends. As we sit there racking our brains, now and then moving some piece off the board, my cat sits perched on a railing and stares at the chess board. Now, that cat has NOT AN IOTA of an idea as to what is really going on on that table, despite the fact that he continues to look intently at it for long periods of time. A key aspect of faith in God is that we are the created, He is the creator. We are like the cat looking at God's universe and we have no idea what we are looking at. If you don't have the humility to accept this notion, then the idea of God is just not for you.

As the prophet declares (Isaiah 55:8,9), and I am translating correctly here, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways, said the Lord. For as the heavens tower above the land, so do my ways and my toughts tower above your ways and your thoughts."

There really is so much more to discuss, but this medium is not conducive, in my view, to in-depth discussions. Perhaps its my hunt-and-peck one finger typing that's the problem.

You may refuse to educate yourselves about this and endlessly repeat the mistaken assertions, but that changes not the facts on the ground, so to speak, one whit.

TS Please do not leave on my ignorance.

You are 100% correct what I should have said is that my argument for the context in which it was written was wrong as to what an atheist might construe as proof of God's existance.

I am very new at this, so please bear with me, as it will undoubtedly show that I am very apt to make an ass out of myself.

Miah,

You give TS too much credit. It seems obvious to me he has little to contribute to this kind of discussion, as he objects to having it in the first place. He is good at arguing, and has a powerful mind, but it doesn't mean he is always right, always ready to see another side of things, or that he needs to participate in every discussion. Let him go! Intelligence isn't necessarily the highest virtue in a discussion.

no carol, the problem lies in that scientists don't take science as a philosophical worldview, regardless of the accusations of the right. In fact science is nothing more than a formula for generating PRACTICAL approaches to answering observational questions about the world. It has never and was never intended to address questions of the nature you propose (i.e., whether what we see is just a limited human version of god's creation). It has nothing to do with humility, it has everything to do with understanding what the function of science IS.

If a person chooses to attempt to formulate the scientific method as a complete worldview, that is equivalent to someone taking a specific economic theory and applying it as a worldview. I cannot judge whether such a usage is appropriate, but i can say definitively that it was not intended.

this goes straight to the issue of theology vs. the scientific method. the two simply attempt to address questions in quite different ways. The fundamental difference being that the scientific method is only concerned with things that produce PRACTICAL application, not spiritual ones. if we abandon the scientific method in favor of a theological approach, we abandon hundreds of years of resultant practical application. thus the danger of confusing the two methods in young minds.

a personal belief in a creator should not defer someone from correct utilization of the scientific method, no more than a belief in aliens would preclude someone from balancing their checkbook.

However, attempting to do extrapolate and impose a personal worldview onto the scientific method simply isn't appropriate, and has resulted in the mess we are seeing today. I keep wondering when those who so strongly feel that science somehow destroys their worldview will figure this out. It's not like it hasn't been pointed out before.

If you really want TS back, perhaps that last sentance in my last comment will be too irrisistable for him not to take a jab.

But that isn't the case. There is NO evidence to support either a local or world flood.

actually, reading your last comment again, i think we fundamentally agree; just chose to express it from different directions :)

However, attempting to do extrapolate and impose a personal worldview onto the scientific method simply isn't appropriate, and has resulted in the mess we are seeing today.

I wasn't referring to anyone here specifically, more making a general point that seems to be at the root of the problem that spawns the whole debate to begin with.

Katarina;

I attempted to correct ts by telling him how he replied to what I said, was out of context. By which he corrected me, because I was indeed wrong. I mistaken what I myself said. Something that does NOT work when arguing or debating.

Something I must, myself, endeavor to correct if I am going to be an any use on any forum.

Carol writes:

"The Hebrew Bible was the only Bible for thousands of years. It is only recently, in the last few centuries, that it has been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) and then into English and other languages. Then came the add-ons, the so called "new" testament."

For the record, Carol, the Septuagint was produced in Alexandria over 2200 years ago for the benefit of Jews for whom Greek was far more familiar than Hebrew. Many quotations from Jewish scripture in the New Testament are pretty obviously citations from the Septuagint. By the time of Christ, Hebrew was a learned language for many Jews. Even the Talmud is written in Aramaic.

By the way, many parts of Tanach are not particularly ancient--Daniel, famously, was written in Hellenistic times and the Priestly passages in Genesis probably date from the exile, which accounts for their distinctly Bablonian flavor. The Bible is old, but not that old.

2500 years ago is a long time, but the Jews were nevertheless newcomers in the civilization business relative to the Egyptians and Mesopotamians and even the West Semites of Ugarit whose poetry was plagiarized by the Psalmists.

The story of creation in Genesis does NOT, repeat NOT, contradict ANY tenet of science, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY, so long as it is translated accurately and correctly.

— carol clouser

Carol's wrong anyway, Miah. We've had this discussion before in which she tries to push her idol's/employer's book and spouts faulty science and faulty biblical scholarship at us. Anyone got the link handy?

TS Please do not leave on my ignorance.

Intelligence isn't necessarily the highest virtue in a discussion.

Carol's wrong anyway, Miah. We've had this discussion before in which she tries to push her idol's/employer's book and spouts faulty science and faulty biblical scholarship at us. Anyone got the link handy?

I'm all verklempt...

I'm glad ts, at least, has managed to have the last word.

Meanwhile if anyone actually cares to honestly evaluate my suggestions, as Miah at least did, I welcome further insight.

I am especially interested in scriptures related to whether or not God's character demonstrates he would be open to a scientific level of scrutiny. Because if not, then ID has zero theological value. When this thread closes, please feel free to e-mail me.

katarinaaram@yahoo.com

Sorry, I should have written, as Miah and SEF did.

I'm glad ts, at least, has managed to have the last word.

I am especially interested in scriptures related to whether or not God's character demonstrates he would be open to a scientific level of scrutiny. Because if not, then ID has zero theological value.

ts,

Is there a reason you are baiting me? I refuse to play.

Comment #43202 Posted by carol clouser on August 15, 2005 08:43 PM (e) (s) Perhaps someone here can help me find the flaw in the following logical progression. .... Another example that comes to mind is the problematic evolution of sexual reproduction. How did male and female genders evolve parallel to each other if partially developed sexual organs are of no use until both types are fully functional? (I recall reading about this from an evolutionary point of view, but don't remember the details. If anyone here can help refresh my memory would be appreciated.) So this area is ripe for Godly intervention. According to some translations of the story of Adam and Eve in the original Hebrew version of the Bible, God provides the necessary intervention. Not by taking a "rib" (that is just another mistranslation of the Hebrew "tzela" which almost always means "side of" or "characteristic of") but by creating XY and XX pairs of chromosomes for males and females, respectively, so that it appears as if a "side" of one of these chromosomes has been removed from the male. Of course, if this is the real intent of the Bible it MUST be the word of God since none of this was known thousands of years ago. (For further reading on this I recommend Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF and, oh, before I forget, I did work as editor on this book). Are there enough gaps in our knowledge to make room for such intervention? Finally, why not just propose that the universe and the laws of nature were originally designed intelligently so that no further interventions were necessary? Is an ominipotent creator incapble of doing so?

bah teaches me to post at 4am ... sorry for the missing words here and there that would have made that post read properly....a few missing punctuations too. Don't even want to think how many spelling errors...I'm off to bed.

Hi TS:

Some (at least) theologians certainly are concerned with the notion of a "god of the gaps"; athiests may well find it an interesting concept as you assert, but that does not make it a non-theological concept. It seems to be an entirely theological analysis to criticise a god-concept as "god of the gaps"; it is certainly not a scientific argument/criticism. At any rate, I'm glad we can (I think) agree that the God/Creator/Designer implied by the ID argument can be correctly described as a "god of the gaps". If you are not comfortable identifying that analysis as theological and need to tack on an atheist disclaimer, don't let me presume to stand in your way. I see it as a theological criticism of a fundamentally theological idea (i.e. ID).

I'm not seeing how making a theological statement about a theological concept (ID) is a case of special pleading at all. If I am right (of course I could be wrong) that ID is a fundamentally theological proposition (we seem to agree, I think, that it is not science), theological criticism should be fair game (again, assuming there is such a thing as legitimate theological criticism). People who misapply theological criticism to science misunderstand science as having anything to do with God. What ID is to science is certainly not a goose and gander relationship.

You needn't counsel me on epistemology. There is a quite clear distinction between what if anything I "believe" as a matter of faith and what I understand and know from science. Two very different ways of understanding the world in which one lives can be comfortably resident in one mind/brain. But thanks anyway for the friendly suggestion.

Cheers,

Shaggy

Jim,

You are roughly correct about the date for the FIRST VERSION of the Septuagint, but that version of the Bible does not exist anymore. The King James version is a translation of a much later version of the Septuagint and to some extent the available Hebrew version. According to the Talmud, which I can read in its original Aramaic, the Septuagint was commissioned by King Ptolemy for his own purposes, not anything as lofty as the benefit of Greek speaking Jews. As a matter of fact, the Talmud relates how the 70 Jewish scholars were in fear for their lives if their translations were not to perfectly match.

In any event, ALL versions of the Bible in existance today are multi-generational translations of the original Hebrew. That is not disputed by any notable historian or scholar. Which leads to the next point,

Miah,

that if the issue of concern is the conflicts between the word of God as represented by the Bible and science, then obviously we ought to be looking at the original Bible not multi-generational translations of it. And this is even more of an issue when the claim has been made repeatedly by scholars that the translations are particularly poor, careless and sloppy. If all you are interested in is Christianity bashing, well then my point is irrelevant.

Some (at least) theologians certainly are concerned with the notion of a "god of the gaps"; athiests may well find it an interesting concept as you assert, but that does not make it a non-theological concept.

It seems to be an entirely theological analysis to criticise a god-concept as "god of the gaps"; it is certainly not a scientific argument/criticism.

I see it as a theological criticism of a fundamentally theological idea (i.e. ID).

I'm not seeing how making a theological statement about a theological concept (ID) is a case of special pleading at all.

People who misapply theological criticism to science misunderstand science as having anything to do with God.

You needn't counsel me on epistemology.

Theological criticisms aren't logically valid; they depend upon theological assumptions. The g-o-t-g criticism is logically valid, and does not depend upon theological assumptions.

I was addressing someone else (who could use that and a lot more counseling, but isn't likely to take it);

Katarina,

A thought or two about science not detecting God "in the gaps", if I may.

A few years ago there was a very talented performer named Uri Geller. He would perform such amazing feats as make a spoon bend, seemingly by just staring at it, and claim that he was endowed with supernatural powers. He developed quite a following. A physics professor of mine (with a great reputation in the field), with whom I used to have long chats about all kinds of things, was beside himself one day. He told me that he saw Uri Geller on the Johnny Carson show. Carson pulled a spoon out of his own pocket and never let go of it. Geller looked at it for a while until it started bending in carson's hands as much as 45 degrees. My professor shouted, "There is no natural phenomena that could explain that!! How could he do that? Its driving me nuts!"

A few years later another great performer called Randi (I don't recall his full name), to his great credit, made a career of performing many of Geller's feats, then emphatically telling everyone that there are no supernatural things involved. "They all are just neat tricks", he said, but he refused to divulge the tricks because it "would ruin his and other magicians' livelihood." Randi also claimed that scientists are the easiest of all audiences to fool. They look for simple and natural explanations and when they cannot find them they are totally lost and in awe. They never figure it out.

So, if there is a God/creator and he wants to hide, and I can think of quite a few good reasons for his wanting to do so, you think science and scientists will catch him in the act? If Geller can stump 'em, pray tell, what could God do? How about, for starters, shifting the gaps around, drawing circles around our best efforts? Or think of it this way. If there is a God/creator ,then science is TOTALLY INCOMPETENT to detect the most salient feature of the universe! And there is no hope whatsoever that it will EVER be able to do so!

Now, the ID people claim to have finally caught God in the act by detecting "intelligent design". But the gaps they are looking at are lost in the mists of history and most scientists remain unconvinced. After all, if a gap is truly a gap, then we don't know what is going on and anything can be true. So it all comes back to one's starting assumptions or axioms, as I have said in these posts many times before.

For some reason Carol thinks that the extant Septuagint (Greek translation of Jewish scriptures, often abbreviated LXX) isn't authentic even though a quick look at the notes to my edition mentions some pretty old manuscripts and the book was quoted frequently by many ancient authors and used by Chuch fathers such as Jerome and Origen. But maybe Carol is referring to another problem: the currently accepted Hebrew text of Tanach was only established after the LXX translation, which obviously was based on a somewhat different Hebrew text. Granted the normal variations one finds in manuscripts, it would be amazing if there were only one ne veritur version extant before the Masoretic text.

The story about how the 70 translators all came up with the same translations is pretty obviously folklore. I guess there are traditionalists who accept this sort of tale as historically accurate. I can't recall having encountered one, though.

He told me that he saw Uri Geller on the Johnny Carson show. Carson pulled a spoon out of his own pocket and never let go of it. Geller looked at it for a while until it started bending in carson's hands as much as 45 degrees. My professor shouted, "There is no natural phenomena that could explain that!! How could he do that? Its driving me nuts!"

if there is a God/creator and he wants to hide

If there is a God/creator ,then science is TOTALLY INCOMPETENT to detect the most salient feature of the universe! And there is no hope whatsoever that it will EVER be able to do so!

The g-o-t-g criticism is logically valid, and does not depend upon theological assumptions.

Sorry, repeating myself again. I just feel like people are not hearing my actual argument, but mistaking it for the typical god of the gaps. That is frustrating.

Cops sometimes plant false evidence, not in order to convict the innocent but because they are afraid that there isn't enough to get a conviction on somebody they know (or think they know) is the culprit. I think something like framing the guilty accounts for the well-known tendency of believers to engage in various deceptive practices like embellishing or simply inventing sacred narratives. If you are absolutely, positively sure you're right, you find it easy to justify many actions that you wouldn't dream of doing for a lesser purpose.

The g-o-t-g criticism is that claims of God's actions are retracted as science advances and contradicts those claims; no theological assumptions are needed. Any claim about God's action in the world being detectable is unfalsiable, because each specific claimed detection is retracted as it comes under scrutiny. Saying "he can act in the gaps but without the wish to be detected" is simply confirmation of the g-o-t-g criticism. Talk about choosing to reveal himself to people etc. is quite clearly desparate talk to salvage an unsustainable position, just as people claim that Uri Geller's powers are disrupted by the presence of skeptics. The position is deeply intellectually dishonest, a completely arbitrary application of principles and arguments in just those ways that support the desired conclusion and never in any way that challenges it. Such behavior plays no positive role within the social framework of humans as discursive reason givers that has led to our rich body of knowledge about the world around us.

that's an interesting analogy, Jim. Makes quite a lot of sense. I wonder if somebody has actually studied and published on the pyschology of this behavior yet?

the well-known tendency of believers to engage in various deceptive practices like embellishing or simply inventing sacred narratives. If you are absolutely, positively sure you're right, you find it easy to justify many actions that you wouldn't dream of doing for a lesser purpose.

You are making me doubt my abilities to put my thoughts into words. I wish I could just talk to you face to face and make you understand,

and maybe then you would even bother with good manners.

Accusations like this, and many of your other comments, are quite ill-mannered.

I guess you could conclude that I was being hostile to religious folks by writing about the well-known tendency of believers to engage in various deceptive practices," but I was also providing them with an excuse. After all, anybody who is familiar with how sacred narratives evolve is well aware that each successive version "improves" on the last so that you can't get the faithful off the hook by claiming that they were scrupulous about factual accuracy. They simply weren't. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Taoists, Buddhists, Shinotists, etc.--everybody fudges the data. (You are obviously free to think that your guys are the sole exception to the rule.)

Please notice that I'm not saying that religious people are simply dishonest. For example, when the author of the Gospel according to Matthew created varioius stories about Jesus (they called his name Emmanuel, etc.) so that it would appar that prophesy was being fulfilled, I expect he thought prophesy had been fulfilled since 1) He was sure Jesus was the Christ and 2) if Jesus were the Christ, then he came in fulfilment of prophesy and (therefore) 3) the mere fact that nobody remembered the particulars that fulfilled prophesy is not important. They must have happened.

The only research on the moral tendencies of believers and atheists that I've seen is an old study that claimed that atheists tend to lie less often in matter of fact situations such as commercial transactions. I've lost the reference, however; and, anyhow, I'm skeptical about the validity of social psychology experiments. Maybe somebody has seen something more recent about the topic. It would be interesting to know, for example, if people with a pronounced lack of self control are more likely to be attracted by sects that emphasize salvation by faith alone.

sounds like someone is playing the victim...

er, i was referring to someone other than yourself, jim, just to be clear.

" It would be interesting to know, for example, if people with a pronounced lack of self control are more likely to be attracted by sects that emphasize salvation by faith alone"

indeed it would.

are you aware of the studies posted here some time ago suggesting a genetic component to extreme religious behavior?

Accusations like this, and many of your other comments, are quite ill-mannered. Look in a mirror, dear.

And if you find me so dumb, dishonest, and ill-mannered, then why engage me?

You did not even address my "wild chance" gap, only the "subjective experience" gap, the one that was easiest to ridicule and call pathetic, though you could not demolish it simply on that basis.

sounds like someone is playing the victim...

are you aware of the studies posted here some time ago suggesting a genetic component to extreme religious behavior?

of course, but don't you think you are extrapolating from my statement just a bit?

I didn't see the need to go into a complete discussion of the methods and conclusions of the paper, i was merely inquiring as to whether the intended recipient of my question (Jim) had in fact, seen the article.

btw, you might actually want to check out the article yourself before you group it with standard sociobiological non-sense from so long ago. We actually had a rather lengthy discussion about the ramifications of it, methods used, conclusions reached, etc. IIRC, the discussion was sometime in May or early june, and the link to the article was posted a few weeks before that. You might want to check into researching current methods in cognitive psychology before commenting on the methods the paper uses, tho.

If you truly have an interest, I'll dig up the link to the article (well, at least an abstract). You will have to go and check the archives for the discussion tho.

cheers

I didn't notice the article. I can easily imagine that certain genes conduce to extreme reliosity if only because they promote extreme, agressive behavior in general. A gene that leads to increased production of testosterone, for example, might function as a sort of general purpose exclamation mark gene.

Otherwise, I think it is an error to regard ordinary religiosity as any kind of departure from the norm. It is the norm. I suspect that there are certain wired-in cognitive illusions central to religious belief, including, crucially, the tendency to project an agent behind events. The cognitive anthropologist Scott Atran argues that the human propensity to postulate gods and spirits is a side effect of an adaptation to living in a world full of animals that can eat you. (c.f. his book, In Gods We Trust). Incidentally, Atran is skeptical about tracing to this in-built paranoia to particular genes. He treats it as an emergent property that depends on many genes. That sounds reasonable to me since being on the look out for signs of purpose in the world is so adaptive that you'd expect it to be a robust tendency not easily disrupted by a single mutation or developmental accident.

Jim (re #44251),

I am not "assuming for some reason" the our present day Septuagint "isn't authentic". I do know, and you are invited to check into this, that the Septuagint has been repeatedly revised since the first version was forced upon the 70 Jewish scholars by Ptolemy. Additionally, the present day version of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, which is what we are primarly concerned about here (Genesis in particular) and constitutes the core of the Hebrew Bible, traces back to Ezra who promulagated it about 400 years before Ptolemy and the Septuagint, contrary to your statement. These are universally accepted facts. And the Israelites have been guarding the accuracy of Ezra's version with their lives ever since. Ezra, in turn, based his work on scrolls that dated back hundreds of years before him.

As to the story of the 70 Jewish scholars, it does not come to us from some gossiping grandmother's tales bearers. I quoted the Talmud. Have you read the Talmud? CAN you read the Talmud? Do you know about whom you speaketh? The Talmudists were exceedingly careful, even painfully so, in recording their oral traditions accurately. If there was the slightest doubt about a detail they would jump on each other and debate the merits of all sides, much like scientists critique each others proposals. Ptolemy wanted to make sure he got an accurate, absolutely correct, translation (unlike many people today, particularly here, who don't seem to care but wish to enjoy criticizing). His plan was to look for discrepencies, then challenge the scholars about those and get to the bottom of it.

TS,

I am not going to descend into your sewer to trade insults with you. Not because I cannot, but because I choose not to. It is certainly plausible that some scientist/magicians "figured it out". Nowhere did I indicate anything to contradict that. But I myself heard Randi say that scientists are the easiest folks to fool. I did not see Geller perform, even on TV, but my physics professor was certainly no slouch when it came to observing and reporting precisely. (By the time he died he had over 150 papers published, most of them on magnetohydrodynamics). He saw no hands go over the spoon and Carson did not feel a spoon slide into and out of his hand. And Carson stated that he was not "in" on the trick, and I think we can trust him too. Obviously both he and the professor didn't catch what was really happening. But the professor never remotely entertained supernatural explanations, he was too much of a scientist to do so, nor did I indicate that he did, despite your insinuation. Read carefully what I write - I mean exactly what I say and say exactly what I mean. If Randi eventually "spilled all the beans" in detail, I do not know and have no problem taking your word for it. It is not at all relevant. He certainly was "not talking" when I heard him, and for some time thereafter.

Carol, I have no reason to fence with you. You are writing from the standpoint of faith Hence, for example, your reliance on the Talmuds, which date from hundred of years after Ptolemy II's time and are hardly credible documentation. If you're a believer, it's all very well to claim, "The Talmudists were exceedingly careful, even painfully so, in recording their oral traditions accurately;" but there is no evidence credible to a nonbeliever that they were. Indeed, as I read 'em, they appear to be full of all sorts of folkloric material. And not just me--Ginzberg, Neusner, etc.

My understanding of the legendary quality of the LXX story derives from various Jewish scholars, including the historian Eric Gruen who discusses the so-called Letter of Aristeas, the oldest version of the translation story, in the recent book Culture of the Jews: "The tale, of course, should not be confused with history."

Once again, I have no quarrel with your faith. I just isn't mine. You're welcome to make the leap. You just can't expect the rest of us to jump along with you.

Nowhere did I indicate anything to contradict that.

— Carol Clouser

my physics professor was certainly no slouch when it came to observing and reporting precisely

Stage magicians note several methods of creating an illusion of a spoon spontaneously bending. Most common is the practice of misdirection, an underlying principle of many stage magic tricks. In one or several brief moments of distraction, a "psychic"/magician can physically bend a spoon unseen by the audience, then gradually reveal the bend and thus create the illusion that the spoon is bending before the viewers' eyes. The spoons usually bend at the point where the bowl met the handle, where bending would require the least force. Skeptics note Geller often turns his back on the audience, and further point to unusual conditions Geller at times sets for his performances, such as that the objects to be bent need to be moved in front of other metal objects for the psychic effect to work, or to be held underwater. They note these conditions would allow opportunities to divert the audience's attention away from the item to be bent. Regarding sturdier objects like keys, they note Geller sometimes claims these items need to be in physical contact with other metal objects, which could allow surreptitious use of leverage between the two objects to achieve the bending. It has also been suggested that he or a confederate prepares the spoons before television appearances by pre-bending them and thus reducing the amount of force later needed to be applied, and Geller at times has refused to bend spoons to which he has not been given prior access.

don't you think you are extrapolating from my statement just a bit?

Geller was unable to bend any cutlery during an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson where the spoons he was to bend had been preselected by Carson. Earlier in his career, Carson had been an amateur stage magician, as had James Randi who advised Carson on how to thwart potential trickery. Many in the U.S. who had earlier accepted Uri's claims of supernatural talents changed their opinions of him as a result of this event. Geller has at times cancelled performances or failed to produce the expected results, sometimes blaming his apparent lack of psychical power on some interference, exhaustion, or lack of cooperation by the subjects. You can view a clip of Geller's appearance on this program, and a presentation by James Randi here: http://www.darat.org/~dimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv

My axiom is that He is simply choosy about showing himself, at what times, to whom, and in what circumstances.

The purpose of this behavior would be to give US a choice of whether or not to believe, since no one has irrefutible proof.

If we did have irrefutible proof, there would be little choice left but to believe, and then everyone would be a believer, and faith would be cheap.

The whole criticism of the god of the gap argument relies on the assumption that the gaps will shrink.

But there are two types of gaps, the ones that will shrink, and the ones that won't. As I argued earlier, the ones that won't are wild chance events as well as soft proofs when He chooses to reveal himself to people, which later cannot be re-produced at our will.

We simply cannot go back in time to test what really happened, and even if we could, how do you test His presence? If something is not testable, how do we know it exists? We don't KNOW, but we can choose to believe.

Actually, I'm beginning think it does depend on theological assumptions. The assumption for an unshrinking gap is the argument that I just made, that he can act in the gaps but without the wish to be detected. That would be easy enough with chance events, since chance events are what guide almost everything, though there are domino cause-effect relationships that result from them. So that leaves the god of the gaps criticism logically dependent upon theological assumtions, namely, how a God of the Bible would act.

Miah, that if the issue of concern is the conflicts between the word of God as represented by the Bible and science, then obviously we ought to be looking at the original Bible not multi-generational translations of it. And this is even more of an issue when the claim has been made repeatedly by scholars that the translations are particularly poor, careless and sloppy. If all you are interested in is Christianity bashing, well then my point is irrelevant.

— carol clouser

OK. I am sorry for appearing to "play the victim." My emotional outburst was inappropriate.

I was not sure when I first made my theological suggestions in this thread, whether or not a God of the Bible would act that way. I'm still not. I asked people whether they thought so, and left the issue open. SEF, you've just made the point that you don't think he would act that way. Thank you; every honest criticism is helpful.

However: Increasingly I am finding it difficult to sort through the insults to find the gold nuggets, and I don't know if it's really worth it. My task is beginning to look like converting atheists to agnostics, and that is not what I had in mind at all. Nothing so far though, has convinced me that my idea is worthless, unless you are a "strong atheist."

Please just consider the reasons I am here: I am training (part time for the moment, though I am really itching to get back to school full time) to be a biology teacher, it is what I wanted since high school. My future carreer (though not glamorous) is what makes me so concerned about this issue. It will be important for me to be sensitive to people's beliefs, wherever they may stem from. It will be part of my job, and my duty to my students to respect them. I live, and will probably teach in, a community that is not receptive to evolution, and I cannot afford to be on the extreme of philosophical naturalism, or no one will listen to me in the first place. I do not plan to make anything up, but merely to leave room for religious views. I cannot afford to simply be dismissive of such views, and nor would I want to be.

With that, I think I have enough criticism to think about for now, and I wish you all the best.

(By the time he died he had over 150 papers published, most of them on magnetohydrodynamics).

— carol clouser

TS:

Thanks for your patience and for continuing to share your comments. I think I now understand your position about the use of theological criticism. I have claimed that theological criticism of ID is valid since ID is a fundamentally theological proposition. Your position seems to be that there is no such thing as a valid theological criticism regardless of the nature of its object. If that is your position, I can see how you would conclude that theological criticism of ID validates theological criticism of science. Basically, you are saying, I think, that since theological criticism is inherently irrational (as you claim), there is no way to reasonably agree on the limits of its purview; any use therefore validates all possible uses. Would you kindly let me know if you think I've got the gist of your objection to theological criticism of ID?

Thanks,

Shaggy

Well Shaggy,

If that is indeed his position, then I understand more of his postings and where he comes from.

To argue the validity of criticising theologically ID, then you in turn validate theologicy and its aguments against science?

So me reasoning weather or not the Bible could allow a God, who's intent was not to be seen or detected, to create the universe and all in it; (authough I have indicated the non-possibilities) would in fact authenticate (to religion) that there is a valid argument in the first place.

To which in your opinion, ts, there isn't?

If this is so, then I completely understand your reasonings for not wanting to divulge in such topics.

But isn't it the argument of the original poster in the thread (Henry) to request a hypothetical discussion of such?

Which in your opinion (maybe) is a fruitless endeavour? Because if we validate the need for such arguments, then they can in turn validate their theological arguments against science?

Jim,

I was not arguing theology or my beliefs, but history and scholarship. And let us not personalize this, since you know very little about me or my beliefs and neither do I know of yours. The point I was making was that it is universally accepted among scholars and historians and theologians of ALL faiths that the original Bible is the Hebrew Bible. Taking everything I said and you said in these posting, that still remains the case. I think your point was to "muddy the waters" here a bit by claiming that after the Septuagint was constructed some of its features made their way back into Hebrew manuscripts. That may have happened to a limited and uncertain extent, but doesn't change the prospects of the present Hebrew version as most reliably the closest version to the original Hebrew Bible. And there clearly was a period of about one thousand years when there was only one Bible around and it was not in Greek nor in English but in Hebrew.

By the way, this is why the Christian creationists, in their books, websites, etc., are always preocupied with the meaning of various Hebrew words. It means a lot to them to get the Hebrew Bible in line with their theology. Why do they care? Because they know the difference between the REAL Bible and a poor translation. If anything is to be a candidate for the word of God it is not the poor translation!

Miah,

First, kindly read the above, for the second paragraph is applicable also to you. Christians in the know know that it is the Hebrew Bible that matters. We don't decide ideas and principles via a vote. Majority may rule, but is not usually correct. Jews learned long ago that the WHOLE WORLD may be wrong and they right when the blood libels were so widely believed for centuries, yet they intimately KNEW that they could not have a shred of truth to it. But the world just would not listen. By beating (literally) up on the Jews with their blood libels the dumb and evil christian mobs hardly realized that they were proving to the Jews that they could be on to the truth and yet the whole world sits in darkness.

Second, while I took some courses in MHD, my main interest eventually shifted to astrophysics. I am close to Princeton U. which has a rather large Plazma physics group. Why don't you contact them and see what happens?

carol,

Per your second paragraph that you pointed me to:

Why are they only concerned with a few words? IMO it is those few words that have dual meanings that doesn't help either way. Our pastor was very animate about the innerrant authinticity of the KJV. Any pastor that I've conversed with denies ANY other interpretation...even today. To me it is pointless to validate any tribal book of myths, especially one so young! And quite frankly your the first that I've heard that claims a whole original translation (Genesis Account)that would NOT contradict science! Something that I will have to investigate on my own. If there is free documentation available on the web that I can access that validates your claim then I would greatly appreciate it. I cannot take your word for it.

What I am trying to convey is that I replied to this article in the context to which it was questioning. I.E the Holy Bible. I agree that the majority may rule, and that they not be right. But if the majority is fighting based on false pretenses, then you MUST indicate that thier pretenses are false as well as what they are useing is false as well.

If you care to provide a detailed theory as it aligns with the original Hebrew Bible that you are so fond of, then I would be happy to converse with you further on this.

As a side note: Do you have an email addy or web addy of this group so that I may contact them?

As a matter of taste, I vastly prefer the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament; but in the final analysis a scripture is just an old book if, like me, you aren't a believer. For that matter, lots of people who are believers nevertheless apply the methods of philology to textural criticism.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you trying to get at about the Hebrew Bible. You did misunderstand me. I wasn't suggesting that the wording from the LXX led to alternations in some Hebrew texts of the Bible. I was suggesting--it's a scholarly commonplace--that the translators were working from a Hebrew text that differs in a variety of ways from the currently accepted Hebrew version. Surely in the time between Ezra and the establishment of the ne veritur text, there were lots of versions floating around. That is, after all, the normal situation with manuscript traditions. One is at liberty to believe that a perfect copy somehow persisted unchanged for all those years, of course, as, I gather, the Bible code folks maintain; but that would be even harded to buy than the bit about the 70 translators agreeing about everything.

Basically, you are saying, I think, that since theological criticism is inherently irrational (as you claim), there is no way to reasonably agree on the limits of its purview; any use therefore validates all possible uses. Would you kindly let me know if you think I've got the gist of your objection to theological criticism of ID?

TS:

You wrote: "And your weaving and dodging to avoid this basic fact of fairness appears to me to be another example of clinging to a position independent of reasoning or evidence, or perhaps a moral compass so broken that such matters are beyond your comprehension (that sound you hear is patience snapped)."

It strikes me as a bit odd that you feel you can deduce such an assessment of my character or any of my "positions" from the simple fact that I had some difficulty understanding your argument; maybe I'm just slow. I assure you that any questions I have addressed to you have been so addressed in good faith. I concede to you that you can make a "g.o.t.g" observation without incurring any stain of having said anything theological. My further questions about theological criticisms were precisely about the analysis of ID as hubristic and blasphemous that I had previously suggested. Forgive me if that wasn't clear.

It does seem clear, special pleading as your objection notwithstanding, that you are dismissing the legitimacy of any "real" theological analysis. Is that or is it not the case?

Cheers,

Shaggy

you feel you can deduce such an assessment

maybe I'm just slow.

Monday to Friday at 6pm (4pm in WA), repeated at 3am Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Our Schools Tuesday 23 August 2005 The theory of intelligent design has reignited debate about evolution by challenging Darwin's theory. US President George Bush wants it taught in schools. And here it's won the qualified backing of education minister Dr Brendan Nelson. Should intelligent design be taught in our schools?