The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Allons enfants de la ID...

Posted 1 August 2007 by Andrea Bottaro

Perhaps there are still true guardians of human rights and opponents of tyranny within the Council of Europe.

That's great!, you are probably thinking, Finally the EU has decided to send troops to Darfur; to call for free elections in North Korea; to forcefully condemn human rights abuses in Guantanamo; or demand the right to vote for Saudi women; or to read Mugabe the riot act... Ah, think again. The paean to the enlightened minds in the CoE comes from our friend Casey Luskin and, alas, celebrates the Council's decision, as reported by some news agencies, to postpone a vote on a Report from their Committee on Culture, Science and Education, issued a couple months ago, condemning Creationism and unequivocally supporting the teaching of evolutionary science in European schools. So, what does the rant about tyranny and human rights gotta do with it? See, Luskin is claiming that the CoE resolution aims to "criminalize" ID and to impose "thought control". But as it often happens with ID propaganda, Luskin is banking on his faithful readers not to read the original sources, because if they did, they'd clearly become aware that the Report states:

97. The teaching of alternative theories can only be considered if they provide sufficient guarantees as to the scientific nature and truth of the ideas put forward. 98. The alternative ideas currently presented by the creationists cannot claim to offer these guarantees, so it is inconceivable that they can be allowed to be taught within the scientific disciplines, either alongside or instead of the theory of evolution. 99. The creationist ideas could, however, be presented in an educational context other than that of a scientific discipline. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist theories, like any other theological position, could possibly be described in the context of giving more space to cultural and religious education. [emphasis mine]

In other words, Creationism/ID do not have sufficient scientific support at this time to be taught in science classes, and hence they should not, until and if they do. They can however be discussed openly in more appropriate contexts, having to do with religion and philosophy. Does this equal a "ban on ID in science classes", as Luskin ominously claims, a violation of human rights and academic freedom? It would be puzzling if it did, because this is the very same position espoused by prominent ID-sympathetic figures, such as Paul Nelson and Bruce Gordon. Heck, who would argue against the proposition that concepts taught in science classes should provide guarantees "as to the scientific nature and truth of the ideas put forward"? And where would those "guarantees" come from, in science, if not via peer review and widespread academic acceptance? The Committee report clearly says that its suggestion to keep Creationism/ID out of science classes is not final, but reversible should either idea assert itself scientifically based on evidence and the judgment of the scientific community. Of course, what Luskin really wants, as argued by pro-ID defense expert sociologist Steve Fuller at the Kitzmiller trial, is a form of affirmative action for ID in school curricula, which presumably should apply liberally to all fringe scientific ideas that wish to be taught in science classes. Not surprisingly, the pedagogical value of such a free-for-all curriculum escaped the CoE Committee on Culture, Science and Education. But hey, never let common sense and truth come between you and a nice bit of purple-prosed propaganda, uh, Casey? Let's throw our young hearts over the barricades of bureaucratic barbarism, under the banner of Truth, Freedom, and the ID way. Sic semper.

61 Comments

Jeffrey K McKee · 1 August 2007

Thanks for this post ... most illuminating. I've had a chance with my kids, ages 9 and 12, to look at a few creationist videos associated with the opening of the "Creation Museum" in Kentucky. My kids took interest because I was in some of the videos, representing the scientific perspective. Taking advatage of these "teachable moments," I put forth to my kids that they must be open to ideas of ID and other creationists. They accept that, but their young minds were working. So I asked what they want in their science classes ... all views, or just science. They want science in their science classes, and, as per point 99 above, want discussion of the other things elsewhere in school.

Why doesn't that work? Because, as we found out in Ohio, those who promulgate ID and other creationist platitudes have no interest in open-mindedness. They simply have an agenda, and it aint friendly to objective science or anything that takes them out of their comfort zone.

rimpal · 1 August 2007

Forget the attack mouse Casey Luskin's squealing. There's an even funnier thing going on at ECLJ. Some quotes from the European C for Law and Justice's comments on the Resolution of the Counncil of Europe

The result of passing the Resoultion would be the prevention of...between...[ID] and...evolution. This approach will hamper the educational progress of students...

Respect for pluralism and diversity are hallmarks...To censor discussion and teaching of creationism (emphasis mine) would violate the spirit as well as the letters of democracy...

Hey Casey, you forgot to tell these guys that the latest disclaimery policy is not to teach ID but to teach the controversy! And creationism? you know that's a no-no! ECLJ is trying to take the same track as do the creationists in the US by demanding equal time etc., This may work in the US because the courts stay out of the question of what constitutes bad science. In Europe there is no such waffling. Nonsense gets the short shrift! As has recently happened in Britain, junk like Explore Evolution is destined for the woodshed.

stevearoni · 1 August 2007

The teaching of alternative theories can only be considered if they provide sufficient guarantees as to the scientific nature and truth of the ideas put forward

So ID proponents can 'teach the controversy' just as soon as they can demonstrate that an actual controversy indeed exists by putting some evidence on the table. I can certainly see how that's tragically unfair, after all it blatantly discriminates against any group with no evidence.

raven · 1 August 2007

Pope on evolution again Speaking to a group of Italian priests on July 24, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI again addressed the topic of evolution. Referring to debates over creationism in Germany and the United States, he suggested that evolution and belief in God the creator are presented "as if they were alternatives that are exclusive -- whoever believes in the creator could not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would have to disbelieve in God," as the New York Post's article (July 26, 2007) translated it. "This contrast is an absurdity," he continued, "because there are many scientific tests in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and enriches our understanding of life and being. But the doctrine of evolution does not answer all questions, and it does not answer above all the great philosophical question: From where does everything come?" A transcript of his remarks, in Italian, is available on the Vatican's website. The Pope's most recent remarks, although brief, suggest that he is continuing to maintain a form of theistic evolutionism, as he reportedly did in his contribution to Schoepfung und Evolution, the proceedings of a seminar on creation and evolution that he conducted with his former doctoral students in September 2006; according to Reuters (April 11, 2007), "In the book, Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution,' the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this." Although Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn's 2005 New York Times op-ed "Finding Design in Nature," which seemed to express sympathy for "intelligent design" creationism, was widely feared to herald a possible shift in the Catholic Church's attitude toward evolution, subsequent developments, including a series of clarifications from Schoenborn, have for the most part indicated otherwise.
Sort of on topic. The pope says evolution is OK. He favors theistic evolution. Atheists would say this is a copout. Irrelevant. What would you expect the pope to say? It could be a lot worse if he started sounding like Hovind or the ID bunch. I'm surprised neither PT nor pharyngula covered this. FWIW, the catholic church claims 1 billion of the 2.1 billion world xians. They also claim 24% of the US population, largest denomination. Others say they are exaggerating. I wouldn't know.

sparc · 2 August 2007

ECLJ is trying to take the same track as do the creationists in the US
This shouldn't be surprising because ECLJ is a branch of ACLJ which was founded by Pat Robertson. ECLJ and ACLJ are related to the Robertson's notorious Regent University and ECLJ organizes summer courses for Regent University students in Europe. Although it is quite obvious from their mission statements that ECLJ and Regent University have some idiosyncratic opinions of Human rights which can be summarized as "Jesus first" and "born to rule the world" they somehow managed to get invited by the European Court of Human Rights. IMO, this was really a bad day for Human rights in Europe.

sparc · 2 August 2007

Quoi ! des cohortes étrangères Feraient la loi dans nos foyers! Quoi ! ces phalanges mercenaires Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers! Grand Dieu ! par des mains enchaînées Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient De vils despotes deviendraient Les maîtres de nos destinées!

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 2 August 2007

He favors theistic evolution. Atheists would say this is a copout. Irrelevant.
No, I'm pretty sure they would agree with biologists that "the great philosophical question: From where does everything come?" has nothing to do with evolution. You would have to insert teleology to make it theistic evolution, and that ain't it. But FWIW, theistic evolution isn't a copout but wrong - there is no teleology in evolution. And since when is a pseudoscience irrelevant for science and education?

Nigel D · 2 August 2007

Isn't it about time for a troll to appear in this set of comments?

Such joy aside, I'm not too bothered about theistic evolution because it offers many people a means by which to accept that there is no conflict between science and religion. They can accept the findings of mainstream science, and simultaneously believe whatever it is they want to believe about what "lies behind" the science. Philosophically, it is far more self-consistent than any position of apologetics or biblical literalism (the adoption of either of which requires that one ignore a huge body of evidence that contradicts the adopted position).

raven · 2 August 2007

Such joy aside, I'm not too bothered about theistic evolution because it offers many people a means by which to accept that there is no conflict between science and religion.
A point I've been trying to make indirectly for days without any success. How many evolutionary biologists at the PhD level in the USA are there? My wild guess would be a few thousand at most actually working in the field. How many Xians are there in the USA. Self identified there are 82%, say 250 million. Who pays for science? The taxpayers mostly, who are 82% Xian. If one frames the attack on science (real, ugly, and potentially catastrophic long term) as "evolution against Xianity" who will win? Do the math. Few thousands against 250 million who pay their salary and research budgets. In the real world, science needs all the allies it can get. So how close are the antiscience cults, Xian dominionist/reconstructionists to controlling the USA?Very. Up until the 2006 election they controlled the house, senate, almost control the Supreme court, and own the president, Bush. Science needs all the friends and allies it can get. Getting back to my point, if one frames the battle as science and evolution against xianity in general, you will inevitably lose. NIH, for example, claims to support partially or completely 300,000 research personnel. Cut their budget 90% and 270,000 of those will apply for unemployment next week.

FL · 2 August 2007

But FWIW, theistic evolution isn't a copout but wrong - there is no teleology in evolution.

Shhhhh. Don't let the TE's hear you say such things. They might choose to start questioning their political alliances with the secular evolutionists, or perhaps question their own TE beliefs a little, or something.

Genie · 2 August 2007

Quote: "But FWIW, theistic evolution isn't a copout but wrong - there is no teleology in evolution."

Partly right. There is no teleology in evolution. In (most) forms of theistic evolution, there is teleology. TE is religion, not science, and the vast majority of TEs I know don't confuse the two.

I think it's important to remember that only a portion of religious people try to use their religion to explain the natural world; religion serves a different purpose. Those of us in the c/e controversy tend to generalize from the YECs and IDers who are trying to twist science to promote their religious views, forgetting that to the majority of Christians, religion functions to relate them to their God, rather than to explain cell division. Personally, I am happy to have TEs as allies; whatever their religious views, they accept science as the best way to explain the natural world, they accept evolution, and they are on my side in trying to keep evolution in school.

And don't forget that there is a whole continuum of TE views: TEs cannot be lumped into one position. Some interpretations are more interventionist than others, but whether interventionist or non-interventionist (e.g., more on the Deistic side of the continuum) TEs make their claims not based on scientific evidence but on theological interpretation. People who use science in determining their theological views are not attacking science. It's the YECs and IDists who insist that science supports their theological views who injure science and science education.

Eric Finn · 2 August 2007

But FWIW, theistic evolution isn't a copout but wrong - there is no teleology in evolution.
There is no teleology in evolution, as it works through random mutations. There is no teleology in natural selection either, even though natural selection is far from a random process, in most cases. This is one interpretation. However, I do not see an easy way to refute teleological evolution. It was hard enough to refute (local) hidden variable theories, and some (maybe very few) scientists are not convinced even now (the experimental set-up has been criticized fairly recently). I find it even harder to refute teleology in evolution. Of course, Occam's razor does not lend support to the teleological interpretation. If you are saying that evolutionary theory doesn't need (and doesn't encourage) teleological concepts, I'm fine with that. On the other hand, if you mean that there is a way to disprove teleological component in evolution, I would be interested to hear about that. Regards Eric

Raging Bee · 2 August 2007

Hooray for Pope Palpadict! I'm still pissed at him for scapegoating gays and "neo-paganism," but it's reassuring to see he's still trying to keep his church sane on at least one major issue.

I guess they're still smarting from having taken 400+ years to admit that the Earth moves, and Scripture does not prove otherwise. It's a pity so many other "Christians" don't have enough sense of shame to learn from this example.

Mats · 2 August 2007

And where would those "guarantees" come from, in science, if not via peer review and widespread academic acceptance?
In other words, ID can only be taught as science when the evolutionary stablishment decides that ID can be taught as science. Good luck on that!

Glen Davidson · 2 August 2007

And where would those "guarantees" come from, in science, if not via peer review and widespread academic acceptance?

In other words, ID can only be taught as science when the evolutionary stablishment decides that ID can be taught as science. Good luck on that! Very good, you've progressed to a backhanded admission that scientific standards are met only by the (maliciously labelled) "evolutionary stablishment" [sic]. See, when you're not on your guard you sometimes write something halfway reasonable. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

J. Biggs · 2 August 2007

FL wrote: Shhhhh. Don't let the TE's hear you say such things. They might choose to start questioning their political alliances with the secular evolutionists, or perhaps question their own TE beliefs a little, or something.
Of course, you conveniently ignore the first part of what T. Larrson said which was that the Pope and biologists most likely agree that "the great philosophical question: From where does everything come?" has nothing to do with evolution. He followed up by saying, You would have to insert teleology to make it theistic evolution, and that ain't it. As I understand it, he is saying that inserting teleology into ToE makes theistic evolution a religious position and not a scientific one, which is also true. Teaching, in a science class, theistic evolution would be just as actionable as teaching creationism. And to address your comment, it is obvious that political alliances have very little to do with what constitutes good science. However, as raven said the funding comes from the taxpayers who can vote in (as we have seen) anti-science religious fundamentalists who are quick to cut scientific funding for myriad programs they find objectionable based on their religious beliefs. Also, I sincerely doubt that TE's will start questioning objective reality that disagrees with the Fundy branch of Christianity anytime soon. They've already proved they are more reasonable than that.

Mats · 2 August 2007

Raven
"Theistic Evolution" is within Intelligent Design, since there is an Intelligence (God) at the beginning of the process.

waldteufel · 2 August 2007

Well, Mats, what other forms of "woo" besides ID should be shoved into science classes?
Astrology?
Numerology?
Phrenology?

None other than the great Michael Behe has testified under oath that the definition of science
should be expanded to include ID. Of course, that expanded definition would also put
astrology under the definition of science.

Pastor Bentonit, FCD · 2 August 2007

In other words, ID can only be taught as science when the evolutionary stablishment decides that ID can be taught as science. Good luck on that!

— A troll who got it right for once,
Only takes, you know, the evidence... (sound of crickets chirping)

Glen Davidson · 2 August 2007

We've found this thread's troll already. I think this means I can (without reservations, anyway) go off-topic and announce that Behe's going to be on Colbert tonight (Thursday). Here's a link which at the time of this posting tells of the episode:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

I suppose we could snark about how Behe's junk is at best comedy, but it doesn't work so well after Dawkins and other pro-science sorts have already been on there (along with the decidedly anti-science Dembski).

Glen D

J. Biggs · 2 August 2007

Mats wrote: "Theistic Evolution" is within Intelligent Design, since there is an Intelligence (God) at the beginning of the process.
Wow, Mats your two for two today. I am glad that you recognize that TE and ID are both philosophical and not scientific positions, that are completely compatible with eachother. Of course, it follows that since neither position is scientific, neither position has any business in science class. Good job.

Dave Carlson · 2 August 2007

"Theistic Evolution" is within Intelligent Design, since there is an Intelligence (God) at the beginning of the process.

Bill Dembski says otherwise.

Pastor Bentonit, FCD · 2 August 2007

I see Legion has come back from the (un)dead...

Coin · 2 August 2007

He favors theistic evolution. Atheists would say this is a copout. Irrelevant.

— raven
"Atheists" would? Do you imagine there's some kind of Atheist Central Committee chaired by PZ Myers or something, which issues official opinions which all atheists then adopt?

I am glad that you recognize that TE and ID are both philosophical and not scientific positions, that are completely compatible with eachother.

— J. Biggs
I'd personally tend to disagree with this. TE is, sure, a philosophical and not a scientific position. However as I see it ID is any kind of philosophical or scientific position at all. ID is a movement, not a proposition. The leaders of the ID movement have expressed opposition to TE. Therefore, TE and ID are not compatible.

Peter Henderson · 2 August 2007

This story has been on going for a few weeks now. First the EU issue a resolution banning the teaching of Creationism and ID and then they withdraw it. Naturally, AiG is cock-a-hoop over this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/23/european-legislators-withdraw-resolution

A big factor in the withdrawal of the resolution must have been a rapidly produced 14-page booklet compiled by the European Center for Law and Justice (www.eclj.org).1 The ECLJ, which is affiliated to the ACLJ (the American Center for Law and Justice), keeps a close watch on what is happening in European institutions and legislative assemblies.

I was under the impression that the ACLJ was a parody of the ACLU and that their intention was to mirror the ACLU in any of their campaigns. Note that the letters are so similar. I suppose this is intentional in order to confuse the average US citizen.

Raging Bee · 2 August 2007

So tell us, troll-boy, are the creationists in control of the USA doing more about Darfur or Korea than the anti-creationists in control of the UN?

Your attempt to change the subject is just plain pathetic.

Coin · 2 August 2007

However as I see it ID is any kind of philosophical or scientific position at all.

— Coin
Should read "However as I see it ID is not any kind of philosophical or scientific position at all". Heh.

J. Biggs · 2 August 2007

Coin wrote: I'd personally tend to disagree with this. TE is, sure, a philosophical and not a scientific position. However as I see it ID is any kind of philosophical or scientific position at all. ID is a movement, not a proposition. The leaders of the ID movement have expressed opposition to TE. Therefore, TE and ID are not compatible.
I agree that the ID movement chooses to be incompatible with TE. We all know that ID is a scientifically vacuous, "Big Tent" political movement that is attempting to replace materialism with "a theistic understanding of science." But, IMO, if you separate the (somewhat useless) philosophy from the movement, it need not contradict TE because, as you say yourself, ID is any kind of position it wants to be. Of course once you accept that evolution is supported by the evidence, the IDers want nothing to do with you, so for all practical purposes you are more correct in your assertion. It's just that Mats doesn't get to be right very often so I was trying to be encouraging.

J. Biggs · 2 August 2007

Coin wrote: Should read "However as I see it ID is not any kind of philosophical or scientific position at all". Heh.
Or you could just say that a movement that supports any kind of philosophical (barring materialism) or scientific position at all, doesn't really have a philosophical or scientific position. Not that I'm trying to put words in your mouth or anything.

Coin · 2 August 2007

Or you could just say that a movement that supports any kind of philosophical (barring materialism) or scientific position at all, doesn't really have a philosophical or scientific position. Not that I'm trying to put words in your mouth or anything.

I think that is an excellent way of putting it.

FL · 2 August 2007

I agree that the ID movement chooses to be incompatible with TE.

And vice versa, of course. There are a tiny few (and very welcome) exceptions, like Dr. Gordon Mills, but apparently the TE movement chooses to be incompatible with ID. After all, any other TE choice (even if it's merely low-carb public criticism of the atheist Dawkins-type evolutionists) might be construed as an invitation to smack a TE across the nose with the pejorative term "creationist", as evolutionists Frederick Crews and PZ Myers reminded Kenneth Miller not too long ago. Most TE's will do anything to avoid their secular brethren smackin' on them, of course, and so they choose to be incompatible with ID.) FL

Nigel D · 3 August 2007

While it is possible to formulate TE and ID in such a way that they represent different expressions of the same point, the people who actually support and believe in these positions tend to say otherwise. Bill Dembski, for example, claims to support ID as an alternative to Modern Evolutionary Theory; he attacks MET in several different ways. However, the whole point of TE is that it accepts mainstream science. Most formulations of TE state, however, that there is something more at work than natural laws alone. Dembski's ID is incompatible with TE because of his rejection of MET. Michael Behe also seems to reject the facts that most TE proponents would accept. He claims that most (if not all) mutations that lead to changes in protein function are driven by The DesignerTM. Since he also attacks MET in places (while accepting other parts of it), his views are not compatible with TE. Even his "front-loading" scenario does not match with TE, because there is no evidence to support it and no mechanism whereby Behe's Front Loading could actually work. TE suggests a different kind of "front-loading", one in which whatever deity set up the natural laws that we can observe in the full knowledge of what they would produce (i.e. the flora and fauna we find today). TE's front-loading scenario is not a scientific position, but a theological one. Again, it is Behe's rejection of MET (particularly in his assertions of what it may and may not achieve) that makes his version of ID incompatible with TE.

And vice versa, of course. There are a tiny few (and very welcome) exceptions, like Dr. Gordon Mills, but apparently the TE movement chooses to be incompatible with ID.

— FL
And is that any wonder, given how much evidence the ID proponents are attempting to ignore / deny?

After all, any other TE choice (even if it's merely low-carb public criticism of the atheist Dawkins-type evolutionists) might be construed as an invitation to smack a TE across the nose with the pejorative term "creationist", as evolutionists Frederick Crews and PZ Myers reminded Kenneth Miller not too long ago. Most TE's will do anything to avoid their secular brethren smackin' on them, of course, and so they choose to be incompatible with ID.)

IIUC, TE supporters do not criticise the science. For the most part, they accept it (or recognise that they are not qualified to criticise it). TE supporters "choose" to be incompatable with ID because ID (as expounded by Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson et al.) is demonstrably false, scientifically empty, and an obvious political ploy (as opposed to a genuine scientific or theological position). I imagine that a TE supporter would criticise Dawkins or PZ if and when they start to claim that there is physical evidence to support an atheistic position. This would not be a scientifically-defensible argument, and would represent a philosophical position, as opposed to a purely scientific one. As a philosophical position, there can be no objective, consensual truth (as measured by reference to reality), so the point is open to debate. However, since TE accepts MET, no scientist would consider TE- supporters to be "creationists" except in the very broadest definition of "creationist". Most of the time, the term "creationist" is used to denote one who denies MET on purely theological grounds. Thus, the term includes YECs, IDists, OECs, "day-age" creationists and so on. In other words, it denotes those who insist that special creation of "kinds" (genera, species, whatever) is more convincing than MET. In short, FL, your point does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

Eric Finn · 3 August 2007

I imagine that a TE supporter would criticise Dawkins or PZ if and when they start to claim that there is physical evidence to support an atheistic position. This would not be a scientifically-defensible argument, and would represent a philosophical position, as opposed to a purely scientific one. As a philosophical position, there can be no objective, consensual truth (as measured by reference to reality), so the point is open to debate.
I agree with you that theistic evolution (TE) might be compatible with the current view of the theory of evolution (Modern Evolutionary Theory = MET, as you called it). Any kind of front-loading is certainly not compatible with MET, or with the current understanding in biochemistry. Having read Dawkins, my interpretation is that he does not claim to have any scientific proof for atheism, he just thinks that the existence of gods is, in his opinion, very unlikely. Theistic evolution involves teleology, as Torbjörn Larsson pointed out earlier. Evolutionary theory asserts that there is no goal in evolution, not even a goal to adapt to a given environment. I find the evolutionary theory strongest, when it explains why adaptation takes place even without a specific goal. Theistic evolution accepts the finds in science, but further asserts that there is (or has been) a goal during evolution (evolution of humans and everything else that humans might need). This is, indeed, a philosophical position, but quite equally, the view that nothing like this ever happened is a philosophical position. We may refer to Occam's razor, or to the teapot in orbit, but we can't (in my opinion) refute this view on scientific grounds. Science is a powerful tool and is often capable of discriminating between conflicting points of view. However, there are limits to that capability. Science is limited, but it is also powerful for the very same reason. I am not very familiar with the situation in the U.S. Still I don't think it is wise to exaggerate the powers of science anywhere in the world. Nigel D, I realised that my comment could be interpreted as opposing your views. That is not the case. I just went on, presenting my own opinions from the starting point you gave in your comment. Regards Eric

Raging Bee · 3 August 2007

Most TE's will do anything to avoid their secular brethren smackin' on them...

Actually, "most TEs" recognize that their "secular bretheren" are natural and indispensible allies in the fight against ignorant, bigoted theocracy. I have yet to meet a single TE who is at all worried about "secular brethren smackin' on them." We're more concerned about death threats and lies from Christofascist morons.

Mike · 3 August 2007

"I guess they're still smarting from having taken 400+ years to admit that the Earth moves, and Scripture does not prove otherwise."

I suspect even Raging Bee knows this isn't actually true. The only thing the Church has done on this recently was to admit it had been wrong in the way it treated Galileo. The Church long ago accepted heliocentrism and science generally as the way of knowing about the physical world.

Gary Bohn · 3 August 2007

Anybody interested in another fisking of Casey Luskin on this issue might want to take a look at this "http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2007/08/03/criminalizing-creationism/#more-121" DarwinCentral blog entry.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 3 August 2007

Philosophically, it is far more self-consistent than any position of apologetics or biblical literalism
How is it not apologetics? It is a way of defending faith, isn't it? I can agree on the consistency though - it is a highly unfalsifiable difference between it and a natural theory. (Which is why it is a pseudoscience as much as all other non-mechanistic designer theories.)
Partly right. There is no teleology in evolution. In (most) forms of theistic evolution, there is teleology.
I'm trying to define TE. Note that Ratzinger must actively formulate his TE, deistic cosmological questions doesn't suffice. Non-teleological evolution would be evolution proper, wouldn't it? Perhaps I need an example of what you mean.
However, I do not see an easy way to refute teleological evolution.
No, it makes itself unfalsifiably different. It is because the difference is non-predictive on purpose that it isn't just an equivalent scientific theory as I think we all agree on. That is exactly my beef with it. :-P
It was hard enough to refute (local) hidden variable theories, and some (maybe very few) scientists are not convinced even now (the experimental set-up has been criticized fairly recently).
Btw, have you read Scott Aaronsson's blog Shtetl-Optimized? He has a post where he notes that finite Hilbert spaces (from AdS/CFT holography on the Hubble volume, I think) also prohibits hidden variables.

Nigel D · 4 August 2007

How is it not apologetics? It is a way of defending faith, isn't it?

— Torbjörn Larsson
TE is not apologetics, because: (1) Apologetics is founded on the principle that there exists physical evidence to prove the existence of a deity; (2) Apologetics therefore forces itself to ignore basic principles of science; (3) TE accepts the findings of science, but insists that there exists more than can be discovered by science; (4) TE is thus a philosophical position; (5) Apologetics pretends to be a scientific position, whereas TE makes no such claim; (6) The faith of apologists is open to question, because they seem to feel the need for proof to validate their faith; (7) TE supporters do not require proof of the eistence of a deity; (8) TE is thus a means by which to reconcile faith in a disembodied deity with the findings of scientific investigation.

I can agree on the consistency though - it is a highly unfalsifiable difference between it and a natural theory. (Which is why it is a pseudoscience as much as all other non-mechanistic designer theories.)

TE does not claim to be a scientific theory; it is a philosophical position. As such, it is open to debate, but it is not susceptible to scientific enquiry. Furthermore, I gather that there are different formulations of TE. In one, there is a presumption that evolution is guided in some fashion by an intervening deity. Thus, it follows that evolution is teleological, which is not what MET proposes. Thus, this particular formulation of TE is not compatible with MET. However, I consider this to be a weak form of TE. A stronger form of TE, in my view, is one that supposes the deity was fully aware, when the physical laws were established, of what would ensue as a result of the action of those natural, physical laws. This form of TE makes no physical predictions and requires no teleology in the process of evolution. It supposes a deity that has no need to interfere with the processes occurring in the real world. Thus, it postulates no evidence of divine intervention anywhere in the world. Thus, the idea is entirely untestable. Thus, the position is a purely philosophical one, but it is a philosophical position that is entirely consistent with what we know about the world.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 4 August 2007

(2) Apologetics therefore forces itself to ignore basic principles of science; (3) TE accepts the findings of science, but insists that there exists more than can be discovered by science;
It feels forced to add something to a perfectly fine scientific theory and therefore is defending itself, a point you didn't answer. But specifically here, your points (2) contradicts (3), since TE ignores the basic principles of accepting prevalent theory, of parsimony in selecting equally powerful theories, and of seeking predictive motivations behind different theories (since it seeks the opposite).
it is a philosophical position
Agreed. But it is a pseudoscientific philosophical position because of ignoring the principles above and so being a burden for science and education. More specifically here, it isn't "it is a philosophical position that is entirely consistent with what we know about the world", because we know that science doesn't work when done in that way. (I don't think that is specious, science is informed by what works in this world, and tries to use this knowledge to the fullest extent. Tenuous, perhaps.)
one that supposes the deity was fully aware, when the physical laws were established, of what would ensue as a result of the action of those natural, physical laws. This form of TE makes no physical predictions and requires no teleology in the process of evolution.
Unless you add that physical laws were established outside those entities influences, it is still teleological, isn't it? I see no problem with (faith+)evolution for science and education, it is teleology that is a problem. More specifically here, the first sentence have those entities make physical predictions and the second not, another contradiction.

Nigel D · 4 August 2007

Torbjörn Larsson, you make some strong points. However, I do not agree that violation of the principle of parsimony is in and of itself sufficient to rank TE with Apologetics.

The way I see it, TE accepts what science has found, and accepts the validity of science as a system of inquiry into the functioning of the world and the universe. However, TE claims that above and beyond what can be investigated there is more that cannot. While this is not a scientific position, it is a position that, when people adopt it, I can accept. This does not mean that I necessarily agree with it (after all, it is not parsimonious), but I have no problem with people believing whatever it is they want to believe exists "beyond" the realm of scientific inquiry.

I see a fundamental difference between Apologetics and TE: Apologetics ("creation science", ID, or whatever) pretends to be a valid scientific field of endeavour, whereas TE does not. TE supporters, IIUC, simply claim that there is more to existence than that which is accessible to investigation.

Whether or not TE is a valid position to adopt is a separate debate.

My point is that I see a clear distinction between TE and Apologetics.

Hamlet · 4 August 2007

Some things that need to be cleared up.

(1) Apologetics is founded on the principle that there exists physical evidence to prove the existence of a deity;
(2) Apologetics therefore forces itself to ignore basic principles of science;

These are both wrong. Apologetics is the act of giving reasons in defense of a religious faith. That theism is a reasonable belief. As such, a great deal of apologetics is "defensive" in nature. Dealing with Biblical contradictions and the like. Think of the "classic" apologetic arguments. They are usually of the form, "The Naturalistic/Non-theistic worldview fails to explain..." some non-physical thing (morality, ultimate causes and such). First of all, most of these are not strict proofs. They are not strict proofs in that what they do is offer a choice. Naturalism or trust in reason. Naturalism or objective morality. An infinite regress, "something, I know not what", or theism. The list goes on but that's the idea.

Now, there are tons of bad apologetics out there which do purport to be proofs. Strobel is the author that immediately comes to mind. However, that stuff goes far beyond apologetics.

Nigel D · 5 August 2007

Hamlet, as you can see from what I have posted in this thread, that is different from what I view as "apologetics".

However, you culd be right - my main encounters with apologetics have been within the context of the debate over evolution and whether or not there are alternatives and whether or not evolutionary theory actually threatens faith in a deity.

Thus, my understanding of the term "apologetics" has been shaped by the context in which I have encountered the phenomenon. I was not aware of the theological arguments that come under the heading "apologetics".

However, I think that my comments above can apply equally to a subset of apologetics. I still consider TE to be something separate from any kind of apologetics, because (IIUC) TE does not require proof to support faith.

Hamlet · 5 August 2007

Nigel,

I do agree that TE is not apologetics overall, it however the promotion of TE can be done in an "apologetic way". That is, as a response to the claim that evolution somehow disproves Christianity one can give support to the idea of TE, (as I would do).

I can definitely see where you might get the idea of apologetics as looking for "physical proof". As a Christian, one of the (many) serious complaints I have about "modern" apologetics is that is what it does many times. Or at least, that is what it attempts to do. When all I knew about apologetics and theology was the modern version... well I actually was an atheist.

Henry J · 6 August 2007

So is "apologetics" basically any attempt to reconcile a particular theology with the relevant observed evidence?

Henry

Nigel D · 7 August 2007

Henry, if I have understood Hamlet's posts, the answe is no. IIUC, Apologetics is the process of finding reasons to believe. These may relate to physical evidence or they may relate to purely philosophical points.

From now on, I'm going to need a new term for the type of apologetics that insists on the existence of physical evidence that indicates the existence of a deity.

Henry J · 7 August 2007

From now on, I'm going to need a new term for the type of apologetics that insists on the existence of physical evidence that indicates the existence of a deity.

How about "lack of faith"? Henry

Nigel D · 8 August 2007

From now on, I'm going to need a new term for the type of apologetics that insists on the existence of physical evidence that indicates the existence of a deity.

— Henry
How about "lack of faith"? Henry

Henry, that's not quite the same as what I had in mind. It does, however, have the advantage that it can be used in polite company.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 14 August 2007

Sorry for the delay. Nigel D:
However, I do not agree that violation of the principle of parsimony is in and of itself sufficient to rank TE with Apologetics.
If it is an effort to protect a belief, I personally don't see how is it not. Further, it is an adjustment from earlier falsifiable ideas in just such an effort.
Apologetics ("creation science", ID, or whatever) pretends to be a valid scientific field of endeavour, whereas TE does not.
This is a fine line. For example Miller discusses quantum woo as a probable mechanism for his teleology. So he isn't neutral on what evolution is. Hamlet:
Apologetics is the act of giving reasons in defense of a religious faith.
That is the general description and inclusive definition I think of, thanks. In contrast with Nigel D, I think this may include reconciliation as it shores up a reason to continue to believe; it is a defence.

Henry J · 15 August 2007

How did apologetics get to be called that, anyway? It makes it sound like somebody's apologizing for something.

Henry

GuyeFaux · 15 August 2007

Wiki reveals that

apologia (Greek) (απολογία) means the defense of a position against an attack.

As in, Plato's Apology is not him saying "I'm sorry", but rather the defense of his views. So apologetics generally is the systematic defense of a position. Colloquially, apologetics defends an old position against new lines of attack. Thus the connotation is negative because typically apologetics defends a position of orthodoxy against the weight of new evidence. But I don't see why you couldn't have apologetics in science as well, defending, say, the ToE against the Gaia hypothesis.

Nigel D · 17 August 2007

Torbjörn Larsson, I think I am beginning to see your point.

IIUC, you consider TE to be a form of defence of faith, and hence a type of apologetics.

I see it differently. I see the strongest types of TE as having no need to defend the faith. Allow me to explain.

I envisage two main categoriess of TE.

The first is a weak type, which attempts to see teleology in evolution (and which is therefore at odds with this aspect of MET). The second, stronger type, involves no teleology during evolution. It still postulates a deity, one that somehow "set up" the laws of nature as we find them, and is thus not parsimonious. However, the strength of this second type is that it does not come into conflict with any of the evidence. Therefore, as I see it, there is no need for a believer of this type of TE to defend anything. Hence, I do not see this type of TE as apologetics.

Thus, I do not view TE as a defence of faith, although I ought to clarify that I mean the second, stronger type of TE.

Instead, I see TE as a means by which to reconcile faith with the evidence that science has uncovered. In short, my understanding of TE is that it is the view "things have happened the way the scientists tell us, but there is something more to life, the universe and everything than science can discover".

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması · 29 December 2007

The first is a weak type, which attempts to see teleology in evolution (and which is therefore at odds with this aspect of MET). The second, stronger type, involves no teleology during evolution. It still postulates a deity, one that somehow “set up” the laws of nature as we find them, and is thus not parsimonious. However, the strength of this second type is that it does not come into conflict with any of the evidence. Therefore, as I see it, there is no need for a believer of this type of TE to defend anything. Hence, I do not see this type of TE as apologetics. Yes

Seo · 29 December 2007

IIUC, you consider TE to be a form of defence of faith, and hence a type of apologetics.

I see it differently. I see the strongest types of TE as having no need to defend the faith. Allow me to explain.

I envisage two main categoriess of TE.

The first is a weak type, which attempts to see teleology in evolution (and which is therefore at odds with this aspect of MET). The second, stronger type, involves no teleology during evolution. It still postulates a deity, one that somehow “set up” the laws of nature as we find them, and is thus not parsimonious. However, the strength of this second type is that it does not come into conflict with any of the evidence. Therefore, as I see it, there is no need for a believer of this type of TE to defend anything. Hence, I do not see this type of TE as apologetics.

Thus, I do not view TE as a defence of faith, although I ought to clarify that I mean the second, stronger type of TE.

Instead, I see TE as a means by which to reconcile faith with the evidence that science has uncovered. In short, my understanding of TE is that it is the view “things have happened the way the scientists tell us, but there is something more to life, the universe and everything than science can discover”.

Ichthyic · 29 December 2007

And vice versa, of course. There are a tiny few (and very welcome) exceptions, like Dr. Gordon Mills, but apparently the TE movement chooses to be incompatible with ID.

typical.

uh, which came first?

I rather think the TE position existed long before ID was formalized in the modern era by obtuse intellectual deviants like Johnson.

but, you could take it up with Miller. well, you could if you weren't a complete moron, anyway.

or, you could argue your losing position with Larry Moran if you wish:

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

or you could just go on as you are:

an ignorant, trolling moron, desperate for an enabler of your delusions that you will never find here.

and frankly, the enablers that already exist on your side likely couldn't give a shit about you either.

just go on painting yourself into corners, over and over and over again.

I'm sure someone who has never seen it before will find it humorous. like watching a monkey fling feces.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 30 December 2007

Hmm. Seems I missed answering Nigel's latest comment here (# 124547):

Yes, you have understood me perfectly.

I however don't understand your strong category of TE. That it describes amounts to a sort of deism. It would properly be called "deistic evolution" perhaps. But I don't think it is proposed or pursued in that form.

And as it doesn't propose an interacting agent, it fails scientifically (not testable), logically (not parsimonious) and perhaps philosophically. It makes the same weak assumptions of non-interaction as philosophical agnosticism, so how do we tell them apart?

So I don't see the attractiveness here, while I can see why apologetics would be a strong motivation to pursue TE, which stills keeps the unavoidable anthropomorphic theistic agents up front.

For the later part of the comment, I agree that attempts of reconciliation would tend to disempower theism into deism and finally empty pantheism. Of course, as an avowed atheist I have my own opinion about the possibility of a meaningful marriage between empiricism and dogmatism. :-P

Popper's Ghost · 30 December 2007

But I don’t see why you couldn’t have apologetics in science as well, defending, say, the ToE against the Gaia hypothesis.

Apologetics is based on commitment to a position; it is the opposite of science. When dealing the ToE and the Gaia hypothesis, one should simply consider which is best supported by the evidence.

Popper's Ghost · 30 December 2007

P.S. There's no reason to defend the ToE against the Gaia hypothesis in any case, because the Gaia hypothesis doesn't challenge the ToE. Proponents of the Gaia hypothesis accept the ToE. The problem for them is explaining how the mechanisms they propose could have evolved.

Popper's Ghost · 30 December 2007

TE is not apologetics, because: (1) Apologetics is founded on the principle that there exists physical evidence to prove the existence of a deity ...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Hamlet, as you can see from what I have posted in this thread, that is different from what I view as “apologetics”.

Who cares what you view it as? Language is public.

Thus, my understanding of the term “apologetics” has been shaped by the context in which I have encountered the phenomenon.

How does thes contextual understanding justify your absurdly wrong historical claim about the founding of apologetics? If the only sort of dog you had ever encountered was a poodle, you would insist that collies aren't dogs? Before you arrogantly go telling someone who says that a collie is a dog that a collie is not a dog because dogs have curly hair but collies don't, do bother to check whether you know what a dog is.

Popper's Ghost · 30 December 2007

if one frames the battle as science and evolution against xianity in general, you will inevitably lose

Aren't we fortunate, then, that no one on "our side" frames it that way. (And yes, I mean no one, despite the common lies about Myers, Dawkins, et. al.)

Popper's Ghost · 30 December 2007

The second, stronger type, involves no teleology during evolution. It still postulates a deity, one that somehow “set up” the laws of nature as we find them, and is thus not parsimonious. However, the strength of this second type is that it does not come into conflict with any of the evidence. Therefore, as I see it, there is no need for a believer of this type of TE to defend anything. Hence, I do not see this type of TE as apologetics.

Uh, how about the need to defend the postulation of a deity? I don't think you quite get the point of the principle of parsimony.

Popper's Ghost · 30 December 2007

In short, my understanding of TE is that it is the view “things have happened the way the scientists tell us, but there is something more to life, the universe and everything than science can discover”.

And what's the justification for the claim that there is something more than there is any evidence for?