A visit with an evolutionary psych class

Not only was this a great post that I will be bookmarking to serve as the subject of later blog posts, but those students were lucky to have you as a speaker. It is all too rare, even at the college level, that this sort of critical information reaches students. The idea that a bunch of religious fanatics are at war with science in contemporary America is something of which every educated person must be aware. Bravo!

It's maddening that, despite the endless words given to the "creation-evolution debate" in the popular press, those 3 points (plus a few more of my favorites) are such well-kept secrets that even most university students don't know it until a visiting lecturer alerts them. When you say "most creationists are YECs" I hope you emphasized that it's the rank-and-file that are such, and not necessarily the activists, who seem to just be knowingly "telling fairy tales."

We should all follow the example set by Jack and try to get this message across to as many people as possible.

To me, it seems that there are three possible outcomes to the culture wars:

One - a religiously motivated creationist majority will take control of our democracy and dispense with the protections provided by the consitiution. If that happens then the United States will fall to the level of a third-world nation with education, science, medicine and agriculture suffering even more than they presently do.

Two - the constitutioon will continue to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. In that case it will be possible for a renewed emphasis on education and science which will result in great strides in medicine and agriculture. Or we could just keep ignoring our problems and trying to placate the people who stand in opposition to academic freedom.

Three - the constitution will theoretically continue to protect our freedoms, but the country will become polarized into two differnt factions. The creationists will give up on trying to destroy materialism and simply reject it for themselves. They will develop their own private school system, complete with grade schools, high schools and universities, while still taking advantage of the technology provided by mainstream science. The only question is, will these institutions be officially recognized? If they are, then we could have a whole lot of unprepared doctors and nurses praying for a cure for cancer. If they are not, then there will be a lot of screaming and yelling about discrimination when academic standards are upheld.

If you don't believe that scenario number three is plausible in this country, take a look at the lawsuit filed against the University of California, then take a look at what is in the so-called textbook in question.

The "wedge" document and the continuity of arguments from "creation science" to new outward labels for antievolution will continue to be relevant in future courtroom encounters. And I have no doubt that there will be new courtroom encounters. The early publicity for the FTE textbook project proclaimed that it would obviate the arguments made by the plaintiffs in the McLean case, yet "Of Pandas and People" turned out to be a huge liability for the defense in the Kitzmiller case. The DI is now uttering the same kind of inane things about their new textbook, "Explore Evolution".

Jack, if you have any further contact with these students, please suggest that they read Barbara Forrest's paper, "Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement: Its true nature and goals," available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocacy/id_creationist_movement/

Other "must read" documents would include Judge Jones' decison in the Dover trial (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf), emphasizing my two favorite quotes, "We have concluded that (intelligent design) is not [science], and moreover that (intelligent design) cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." and "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

I've argued before that should the creos prevail in their attack on science, they will seriously harm the USA. The salient points.

1. The US spends over 50% of the world's R&D money. With 5% of the world population.

2. The US is the world leader is science and technology. For examples, the computer age, internet age, biotechnology age, etc.. were all born and flourished here.

3. The US is in many ways, a significant force in the world. Last superpower, economic giant, and so on.

Points 1 and 2 lead to the the present situation point 3. What is our edge that keeps the US ahead? It isn't natural resources, or population size, or climate. If one combines huge R&D expenditures with a free and entrepreneurial society, one ends up with material progress and wealth.

The Idist/creos are aiming right for the heart of our society based on a minority religious view. We don't care what their religious views are, free country with all sorts of odd groups. They do seem to care about ours, they in fact, seek to impose their views on the rest of us.

The goal is to overthrow the US government, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the dark ages. They say so often, the Wedge documents and the Xian reconstructionist/dominionist movement it sprang from.

They may even succeed. Up till 2006 they controlled the congress, owned the president, and had a near majority of the supreme court.

For an example of what fundamentalist religion can do to a society, look at the hard core moslem countries. Many are stuck in the middle ages culturally and economically. The ones with oil trade it for money to buy western science, medicine, and technology. This means they will always be a step or two behind. They do very little science on their own. Many of their best and brightest get western educations and stay here and in western Europe.

The IDist/creo plans for the USA aren't anything many or most people would want for their future.

Paul,

Even though Jack's students should read those articles, they seem to have gotten the message already. The problem is with most everyone else, who don't have the time or interest to read the basics, let alone the detailed articles. To them the words "creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" mean something very different than what is meant by long time critics of anti-evolution activism. Specifically, most people, including many that accept evolution, think that "creationism" means an honest, but harmless belief in fairy tales, and to most of them "religion" is a good thing. But in this context "creationism" is about deliberate misrepresentation of science, and "religion" means "radical fundamentalism" (or "reconstructionism"), not mainstream religion. They need to know that "creationism" is first and foremost classic pseudoscience, whereby differences in opinion (e.g. on the age of the earth) are covered up, not challenged and tested. They need to know that most major religions reject it. Sadly, that too is still a well-kept secret. The scammers even seem to be getting away with the outrageous lie that religious leaders are "bullied" into accepting evolution.

There is a superfluous close parenthesis at the end of the url for the Jones decision: here is the correct one.

I strongly agree with this post.

BUT - it still gives ID/creationists a too much credit. Far, far too much credit.

The Wedge Document tries to create a false dichotomy about ethics, or as they prefer, "morals". To the naive, reading the document, it would seem as if the authors were concerned with morals, while the opponents they describe are brutal nihilists.

Anyone can see that this is false. It is false on both counts. Obviously people who accept modern science are often very moral, and usually very strongly oppose such things as theft, unjustified violence, discrimination, dishonesty, etc.

Meanwhile, right wing ID/creationist types actually seem to seek, for the most part, a brutal, authoritarian "Christian Taliban" type of regime.

"Morality" for them is merely a rigid, arbitrary set of rules about sexuality, gleaned from a strained reading of translations of ancient Jewish texts, yet not endorsed by many rabbinical scholars, which they themselves, at least anecdotally, seem to ignore, and which would primarily serve the function of allowing a hypothetical authoritarian government to justify sadistic violence against women and gays.

There is a "moral" side here, and it is the honest side, the rights-respecting side, the rational side, it is the pro-science side.

I think it is long past time to stop giving the creationists and their ilk the "they're only trying to be moral" excuse. I see no adherence to Christian ethics by them, or any other coherent system of ethics. What I see is a group of people who will say anything, anything at all, including making many false statements about the morality of their opponents, to advance an agenda. I see, in short, that there does indeed seem to be one side in this conflict* which is nihilistic, cynical, and power-obsessed, and that side is the ID/creationist side.

*As always, I refer only to those who advance pseudoscience to justify poor public policy, or who lie to the public about real science. I have no problem with people who simply choose to believe privately in scientifically incorrect ideas, as is their perfect right.

I absolutely agree. If you want to know what creationists are guilty of, just look at what they accuse others of. They are the most hypocritical people I have ever encountered.

They accuse others of wanting an excuse to behave immorally while at the same time using their religious agenda as an excuse to lie for Jesus. Just look at what happened in the Dover trial for example. They accuse others of holding beliefs without sufficient evidence while ignoring all of the evidence and making claims that can never be supported by any evidence. And worse of all, they seek to overthrow the very constitution that gives them the freedom to hold the view that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Talk about hypocritical!

Those who claim the moral high road should not lie in court. Those who demand evidence should go out and do some research of their own. Those who don't want others to have the protection of the constitution should move to another country to set up a theocracy. Gee, I wonder how that will work out for them?

Three HOURS? Are students even awake that long?

A few looked a little tired at the end, but most were attentive and engaged hte whole time. We took 20 minute break in the middle.

And most importantly, they didn’t know how much anti-evolutionism is tied to the creationist idea that evolution is an atheist belief that is responsible for all of societies shortcoming.

I showed them one of the typical “tree of evil” pictures: evolution is the trunk being hacked down by the “creation science message,” and the branches of the tree are abortion, homosexuality, genocide, eugenics, radical feminism and a whole host of other evils.

They were shocked to here how large a percent of adults in the United States are YEC’s.

The students were quite interested to hear about Christians who accept science,

The fact that the IDists denounce theistic evolution helped make it clear to the students that the ID movement (including its fellow travelers under the big tent) are trying to impose a specific religious view under the guise of science

and that the ID Wedge strategy claiming that science is fundamentally atheist is both wrong and unfair to millions of theistic supporters of science.

I am, however, trying to distinguish for the students the views of the IDists from other Christians and all the other people who aren’t trying to wedge us into this God vs. science dichotomy.)

The IDists see modern science as the enemy.

Well, that’s why - modern science sees human beings as merely biological machines with no free will and no inherent moral or spiritual nature.

and we are increasingly seeing non-scientific encroachments upon psychology.

The views of the IDists are not consonant with the Christian and theistic convictions of millions of people, as I then went on to discuss.

A good education should be unsettling, and I am sure all of them will have a broader and deeper perspective on human nature and our scientific attempts to understand it when they are done with their course.

Mats wrote:

"One gets the feeling that Darwinists can’t understand (or don’t want to understand) that one can be against evolution without being against science."

No, one can't. If you subscribe to the validity of the scientific method then you are absolutely not free to simply disagree with the results when they conflict with your preconceived notions. That is indeed denying the very science that you claimed to believe in. In other words, if you believe the method is valid then you must accept the conclusions. If an hypothesis is cconvincingly falsified, you cannot simply go on believing in it and also claim to believe in science. That is just being a hypocrite and it will fool nobody.

"And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality."

So what? Claiming that this is true does not make it so. Humans are perfectly free to determine their own morality and their own moral systems regardless of their origins. What if it were conclusively demonstrated that life on earth originated from alien cockroach droppings left behind after an interstellar survey mission (i.e. the Kurt Vonnegut hypthesis)? Would that somehow absolve us of all moral responsiblity? Why? What possible difference would it make? And if God created humans, what possible difference could it make what processes she used?

"A good way to promote free inquiry and true debate would be to invite someone from the DI to answer to the interpretation made of the Wedge Document, and for him to ask some questions to the Darwinian teacher about the ramifications of evolutionary philosophy."

By all means. I would love to have someone from the DI come here and explain the Wedge Document to us.

Alright Mats, I have asked before and I'm asking again. If you are so pro science, what is your hypothesis? Is it testable? Has it been tested? What is your evidence? Has it been published?

But seeing that free inquiry is not something really promoted by Darwinists, we won't hold our breath on that point. Students will go on being indoctrinated in favor of a specific religious view under the guise of science (Darwinism).

And there we were just talking about the immorality of religious fundamentalists who lie about science.

Don't worry Mats, you're not going to Hell for lying. The only Hell that exists is what people make for themselves or others here and now.

... Philip Johnson, in an article on the Wedge in Touchstone magazine, pointed out that within science, evolution is the most susceptible topic.

The metaphor of the Wedge portrays the modernist scientific and intellectual world, with its materialist assumptions, as a thick and seemingly impenetrable log. Such a log can be split wide open, however, if you can find a crack and pound the sharp edge of a wedge into it. There are a number of inviting cracks in modernism, but probably the most important one involves its creation story, and the huge gap between the materialist and empiricist definitions of science.

Within science one cannot argue for supernatural creation (or anything else) on the basis of ancient traditions or mystical experiences, but one can present evidence that unintelligent material causes were not adequate to do the work of biological creation.

This is not just a very, very interesting posting, but also an excellent way of approaching the young generation. It strikes me as a clear case of one-upmanship re the claims of the IDeologues. Isn't this the approach to take with respect to ID's urge to 'teach the controversy'. This is indeed teaching and as such it should effectively deal with the controversy.

'Teaching the Wedge Document' as described also looks like an excellent move. One aspect that should be introduced when bringing up the consequences of the Wedge policy for science is that science in this case ought to be understood broadly, so as to include disciplines such as history, linguistics and, specifically, biblical studies.

Whilst devastating bible critique dates back at least to Spinoza and others in the second half of the 17th century, the period of Radical Enlightenment, it has reached a critical stage in the second half of last century and now approach the end of its useful life. At least that is what Hector Avalos (of 'Fighting Words' fame) claims in his most recent study [Avalos, H. (2007). The end of biblical studies. Amherst, NY: Prometheus].

Consider, for a change, the Wedge being wedged between science on one side and the humanities on the other!

Actually, the belief that evolutionary philosophy is based on atheistic presuppositions is something we get from atheists themselves. Do we need to bring in the words of Julian Huxley, in 1959, or Dawkins' own words to elucidate that?

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Mats asserted: Interesting how the words “science” and “naturalism” or “evolution” are used interchangeable once more, as if they are one and the same.

One gets the feeling that Darwinists can’t understand (or don’t want to understand) that one can be against evolution without being against science.

Actually, the belief that evolutionary philosophy is based on atheistic presuppositions is something we get from atheists themselves. Do we need to bring in the words of Julian Huxley, in 1959, or Dawkins’ own words to elucidate that?

I think that the message Creationists are trying to pass is this: If you believe that you are the nothing more than the product of a totally natural process, you can justify whatever kind of behavior you want. or IF you believe that there are no moral absolutes, you can justify whatever kind of behavior you want.

And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality.

Yes, it’s truly amazing that after decades and decades of evolutionary indoctrination, almost half of the population in the most scientifically successful nation on the planet still doesn’t believe that living forms are the result of an impersonal, mindless, uncaused natural process.

Either evolutionists are really bad teachers, or the belief that the biosphere is the result of a mindless process is just too hard to swallow for Americans 8or both). You be the judge.

Obviously, ID scientists didn’t say that science is fundamentally atheist. What they might have said is that Darwinism is atheism masked as science.

...the Discovery Institute is filled with Ph.D scientists.

A good way to promote free inquiry and true debate would be to invite someone from the DI to answer to the interpretation made of the Wedge Document, and for him to ask some questions to the Darwinian teacher about the ramifications of evolutionary philosophy.

But seeing that “free inquiry” is not something really promoted by Darwinists, we won’t hold our breath on that point. Students will go on being indoctrinated in favor of “a specific religious view under the guise of science” (Darwinism).

Mats getting it wrong once again: One gets the feeling that Darwinists can't understand (or don't want to understand) that one can be against evolution without being against science.

Let us not forget the painfully obvious fact that neither Intelligent Design proponents nor other Creationists are incapable or even motivated to attempt to explain the myriad phenomena explained by Biology.

That’s right. And that is why the Discovery Institute is filled with Ph.D scientists.

The ID views (The view that some features in the universe are best explained as the result of intelligence, as opposed to undirected impersonal forces of nature) is in obvious agreement with the overwhelming majority of Christians, and theists in general. The opposing view (that the universe shows no evidence for a Designer) is in obvious agreement with the majority of atheists.

But seeing that “free inquiry” is not something really promoted by Darwinists, we won’t hold our breath on that point. Students will go on being indoctrinated in favor of “a specific religious view under the guise of science” (Darwinism).

Julian Huxley the biologist, MATS, or Aldous Huxley the novelist? They are not the same person.

I can't count the number of times a Creationist has made that error. I can count the number of Creationists who have admitted not checking first, by looking at how many thumbs I have on my left foot.

fusilier
James 2:24

Mat lying again: The ID views (The view that some features in the universe are best explained as the result of intelligence, as opposed to undirected impersonal forces of nature) is in obvious agreement with the overwhelming majority of Christians, and theists in general. The opposing view (that the universe shows no evidence for a Designer) is in obvious agreement with the majority of atheists.

"The ID views (The view that some features in the universe are best explained as the result of intelligence, as opposed to undirected impersonal forces of nature)"

And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality.

How did that work out for Adam and Eve? Like, how long did they last in their superior newly minted sinless state? A week?

And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality. How did that work out for Adam and Eve? Like, how long did they last in their superior newly minted sinless state? A week?

One feature that no one has explained yet, is why there is even a universe.

I can’t do justice to Grünbaum’s takedown of this position, which was quite careful and well-informed. But the basic idea is straightforward enough. When we talk about things being “natural” or “spontaneous,” we do so on the basis of our experience in this world. This experience equips us with a certain notion of natural — theories are naturally if they are simple and not finely-tuned, configurations are natural if they aren’t inexplicably low-entropy. But our experience with the world in which we actually live tells us nothing whatsoever about whether certain possible universes are “natural” or not. In particular, nothing in science, logic, or philosophy provides any evidence for the claim that simple universes are “preferred” (whatever that could possibly mean). We only have experience with one universe; there is no ensemble from which it is chosen, on which we could define a measure to quantify degrees of probability. [Bold added.]

Ultimately, the problem is that the question — “Why is there something rather than nothing?” — doesn’t make any sense. What kind of answer could possibly count as satisfying? What could a claim like “The most natural universe is one that doesn’t exist” possibly mean? [Bold added.]

I would just like to point out, for the record, that I am only posting under the name "David Stanton". The posts from "Stanton" are not being made by me. Not that I necessarily disagree with any of the comments made under that name, I just want to set the record straight.

Should I post my last name to avoid further confusion, then?

And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality.

How, exactly? Has anyone even tried to describe a cause-and-effect link between our "origins" (whatever that word is supposed to mean in this instance) and our morality?

I'd ask Mats if he even cared what he was talking about, but he seems to have run away again.

Stanton:

And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality. How did that work out for Adam and Eve? Like, how long did they last in their superior newly minted sinless state? A week?

Or that all carnivores, scavengers, detritivores, Death, Disease and Entropy all owe their inceptions due to Adam and Eve's inherent sinfulness and incompetence?

And according to Creationists, this ties directly to origins, since our origins determine our morality.

LOL, anyone see Mats lately?

Stanton:

LOL, anyone see Mats lately?

He's probably waiting for the next new post to repeat his schtick.

Would it not be ironic if religion can be traced back to an evolutionary adaptation? In fact, there is some evidence that suggests some link, either direct or indirect.
Needless to say that even as a Christian I never have found the 'God provides us with absolute morality' to be very relevant. Even if He did, how would we recognize the 'truth'? Countless failed attempts seem to be sufficient evidence that the idea of an absolute morality is at best philosophically interesting.
Morality makes far more sense in an evolutionary perspective.

Even if He did, how would we recognize the 'truth'?

Got any data here? We really need to compare 10-20 beings designed by an intelligent supernatural being and poofed into existence with an equal group of beings evolved by RM-NS. See if there is a difference in morality.

— raven

Interesting how the words “science” and “naturalism” or “evolution” are used interchangeable once more, as if they are one and the same.

— Mats

One gets the feeling that Darwinists can[no]t* understand (or [do not]* want to understand)

that one can be against evolution without being against science.

Mats wrote:

”One gets the feeling that Darwinists can’t understand (or don’t want to understand) that one can be against evolution without being against science.”

No, one can’t. If you subscribe to the validity of the scientific method then you are absolutely not free to simply disagree with the results when they conflict with your preconceived notions.

Humans are perfectly free to determine their own morality and their own moral systems regardless of their origins.

Science specifically rules the supernatural out of bounds. It only uses empirically obtained and repeatable data to support it’s conclusions.

All ID can do is show that given our present understanding particular issues cannot yet be explained by science.

ID then proposes that this ignorance should be called ‘design’ and that ‘design requires a designer’.

Despite ID’s religious foundations being compatible with the Christian viewpoint, many Christians reject ID for being without merit and in fact theologically dangerous.

Darwinism is and cannot be a religious view since it can be reconciled with both atheism and Christianity.

"Despite the attempt by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory." - Denton, Michael (1985) "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", page 66

Half the world’s Xians are Catholic and the Catholic church just recently again came out for evolution and reality. As Pope Pious said, “One Galileo in 2,000 years is enough.”

Mats, do I understand correctly that you accept theistic evolutionists as supporting design rather than rejecting them as Johnson, Dembski and others have done?

Mats once again proves he has no clue what he's talking about, and probably doesn't care either.

If one believes that we are the result of a mindless natural process,then moral absolutes make no sense.

If we develop our moral absolutes based on what we know to be harmful to us, then yes, they do make sense.

On the contrary, if one believes that he was created by God, then moral relativism goes out the window.

Given the often atrocious behavior of so many people who claim to be acting in the name of their God, I find that claim unsupportable. There are plenty of examples of people doing things they know are wrong, and claiming their God requires it in this or that particular case.

Sure, there are people who “believe” that God exists, but endorse moral relativism, but as one can clearly see, that is illogical.

So much for "moral relativism" automatically going out the window. You just undermined your own argument. Now go back to bed.

Oh, and the Catholic Church EXPLICITLY rejects ID and all other forms of pseudoscience. They further state that honest science, unencumbered by anyone's religious blinders, is THE valid means of understanding events in the material world, including the evolution of life-forms on Earth, which in turn includes humans.

Mats,

Yes, the conclusion of science is that all life forms on this planet were produced by evolution. You're simply wrong if you deny this and you can have no pretentions of being at all scientific in any meaningful way.

Actually "moral absolutes" really don't make any sense. Anyone who reads the Bible can tell you that. For example: "Thou shalt not kill... now please murder your son to prove your loyalty, if you do that I'll kill all your enemies and let you rape their women and make slaves of the little boys". To me it makes a lot more sense to develop a mosern meaningful contemporary moral code basaed on sound moral principles. Perhaps you are just afraid that if people are allowed to think for themselves they won't follow the same code that you do.

I have asked you for a testable hypothesis dozens of times. By now it should be clear to all that you have none. I have asked you for evidence dozens of times, obvioulsy you have none. Kindly take your superior moral attitude and find a convenient hole where the sun don't shine. Your lies betray the moral banckruptcy of your position.

If one believes that we are the result of a mindless natural process,then moral absolutes make no sense.

On the contrary, if one believes that he was created by God, then moral relativism goes out the window. Sure, there are people who “believe” that God exists, but endorse moral relativism, but as one can clearly see, that is illogical.

But, David, it’s not the scientific method that makes people believe that life forms are the result of a impersonal/mindless process. What gave you that idea?

— Mats

. . . If one believes that we are the result of a mindless natural process,then moral absolutes make no sense.

— Mats

On the contrary, if one believes that he was created by God, then moral relativism goes out the window.

Sure, there are people who “believe” that God exists, but endorse moral relativism, but as one can clearly see, that is illogical.

The exclusion of the supernatural causation is an assumption not derived from the empirics.

— Mats

but a philosophical assumption.

You can make all the assumptions you want (the founders of modern science used the assumption that God created the universe), but at least be honest about them.

. . . Remember what I said previously: stop confusing true operational science with Darwinism.

— Mats

Mats, making stuff up again: Raven, the Catholic Church believes that the universe is the result of God's Supernatural design, not the result of uncaused, impersonal forces of nature. The Catholic view is more in line with ID (with or without evolution) than with Darwinism.

Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an absurdity Benedict XVI also says humans must listen to the voice of the Earth MSNBC News Services Updated: 11:55 a.m. PT July 25, 2007 LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries particularly the United States and his native Germany between creationism and evolution was an "absurdity", saying that evolution can coexist with faith. The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God. They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other, the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

I just noticed that Panda's thumb contributor Mats shares his signature with the first name of Swedish creationist Mats Molen who is well-known enough to have an entry in the Swedish Wikipedia, see http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Mol%C3%A9n Molen has studied natural science in Sweden and Canada and has a Canadian M. Sc. as well as several (2 or 3) degrees from Sweden. He runs a creationist museum in his hometown Ume and has also a teaching position in the local school system. In 2001 Molen received the title "Deceiver of the year" given by the skeptical organization "Vetenskap och folkbildning" for his "denial of evolution on the basis of pseudoscientific reasoning"

So, Mats, are you the same person as Mats Molen?

IF he is, then the fact that he's posting such hasty nonsense as we've seen from him here indicates he has absolutely nothing more meaningful to do. I thought he was just a junior-high-schooler making the modern equivalent of prank calls; but if he's an adult who has made a career of simpleminded creationism, that would make his presence here even more pathetic.

Mats, do I understand correctly that you accept theistic evolutionists as supporting design rather than rejecting them as Johnson, Dembski and others have done?

Yes, the conclusion of science is that all life forms on this planet were produced by evolution. You’re simply wrong if you deny this and you can have no pretensions of being at all scientific in any meaningful way.

Mats Wrote: The exclusion of the supernatural causation is an assumption not derived from the empirics.

Not so. Think about this. Science operates on what can be observed and measured, and independently confirmed by repeat observation or repeat experiments.

The Pope is clearly a theistic evolutionist as were the last 3. He is clearly not an Intelligent Design advocate.

So, Mats, are you the same person as Mats Molen?

Mats,

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

If you did 1), why did you? If you did 2), then you agree with the Creationists that Darwinism and Christianity really can’t be reconciled. So which is it, Dave?

I accept that anyone who believes that life forms were designed by a Mind (either by evolutionary means or directly, as the Bible says) is at odds with the standard version of Darwinism, which denies any intelligent input at any level of the evolutionary process.

— Mats

Mats,

You have really made quite a muddle of things on many levels.

So why does ID reject Darwinism? Because it succesfully explains data which in the past was attributed to God. However, ID’s approach is nothing more than hiding God in gaps of our ignorance. We do not know how the flagellum evolved, thus designed. Oops, science is filling the gaps with plausible scenarios, what to do? Well, either we move our God to a new gap, or we just ignore the evidence. ID has chosen the latter, although it also is moving its God from an interventionist to a pre-loader.

From a scientific point of view, evolution is an undirected process, and the theistic evolutionists accept that.

From a theological point of view, the theistic evolutionists believes that the process of evolution manifests the will and design of God, just as everything that happens manifests the Will of God: evolution is divinely directed in ways that are beyond our comprehension and beyond the scope of our scientific investigations.

It is, in my opinion, theologically presumptuous to think that we as human beings doing science are seeing the world as God sees the world. What appears undirected to us from our limited point of view is not undirected from a divine point of view: that is orthodox Christian theology, and it applies to everything, not just evolution.

Of course there are evolutionary biologists who are also materialists, and therefore for them evolution is undirected both scientifically and metaphysically. But their materialism is their philosophical stance and is not science itself. The theistic evolutionists accept the same science as the materialist but disagree about the metaphysics.

[Edited for grammar, and one additional clause added]

See, raven, in case I wasn’t clear enough, the point is not “change over time”. The issue is if impersonal forces can really do what Darwinists claim they did. Can the wind carve Michelangelo’s sculptures? Can the waves on the beach write “Good morning” on the shores? You see the point I am making, raven?

Jack Krebs put the issue very well.

Can the wind carve Michelangelo sculptures? Can the waves on the beach write Good morning on the shores? You see the point I am making, raven?

I accept that anyone who believes that life forms were designed by a Mind (either by evolutionary means or directly, as the Bible says) is at odds with the standard version of Darwinism, which denies any intelligent input at any level of the evolutionary process.

— Mats

Mats, you are confusing the philosophy of materialism with science. From a scientific point of view, evolution is an undirected process, and the theistic evolutionists accept that. From a theological point of view, the theistic evolutionists believes that process of evolution manifests the will and design of God, just as the everything that happens manifests the Will of God.

— Jack Krebs

"standard version of Darwinism, which denies any intelligent input at any level of the evolutionary process."

In response to raven, who said:

The Pope is clearly a theistic evolutionist as were the last 3. He is clearly not an Intelligent Design advocate.

Mats evaded thusly:

You did the same thing David did. You did not address my point. Let me ask you directly, then: Does the Pope believe that the living forms are the result of a impersonal, undirected, uncaused natural process, or does he believe that life owes it’s origins in a Supernatural Mind?

Raven's point -- which you either ignored or can't understand -- was that you were, and still are, misrepresenting the Church's position on evolution and science in general: which is that whatever God may have done, and whatever we may believe God did, science cannot prove or disprove any of it. There's a difference between believing something, and tryng to pretend your belief is proven by science.

I accept that anyone who believes that life forms were designed by a Mind (either by evolutionary means or directly, as the Bible says) is at odds with the standard version of Darwinism, which denies any intelligent input at any level of the evolutionary process.

Wrong again, as usual. As long as a theist does not try to pretend his belief is provable by scientific means, or deliberately distort science to pretend it's been proven, then he's not "at odds" with modern evolutionary theory.

What measurement and observation you have that makes you believe that mindless process really are able to produce the genetic algorithms present in the biosphere?

The consistent and total lack of any physical evidence for the existence or action of such a mind, the lack of a testable hypothesis regarding such a mind, and the lack of anything resembling peer-reviewed scientific work proving the existence of such a mind, or disproving evolution.

See, raven, in case I wasn’t clear enough, the point is not “change over time”. The issue is if impersonal forces can really do what Darwinists claim they did. Can the wind carve Michelangelo’s sculptures? Can the waves on the beach write “Good morning” on the shores? You see the point I am making, raven?

Yes, we see your point. It's a point consisting entirely of meaningless analogies, argument from deliberate ignorance, and refusal to understand how science works, what modern evolutionary theory actually says, or how solidly this theory is supported by a planetful of evidence. We see, plain as day, that you have no idea what you're talking about, and have nothing to contribute to an adult debate.

What measurement and observation you have that makes you believe that mindless process really are able to produce the genetic algorithms present in the biosphere? Have you ever “observed” it, or “measure” an impersonal force generating complex biological codes from where there was none?

— Mats

You are the one that says that evolution is impersonal and mindless. You have not said why this would be a problem. All I can say here is that there exists no evidence to suggest that evolution is directed by any purpose or intelligence. Therefore, although I cannot rule out the possibility that evolution could be directed by a purpose or intelligence, the more parsimnoious explanation is that evolution is not directed by any purpose or intelligence. Thus, until we have evidence to demonstrate that evolution is directed by a purpose or intelligence, we use the working hypothesis that it is not directed by any purpose or intelligence. However, this does not mean it is undirected. Natural Selection is, by Dembski’s own definition, a design process. However, it is directed by what works best here and now, with no foresight or advance planning. So, to rebut your naive argument, yes, the scientific method, when combined with the overwhelming evidence and some logical deductions, is what compels rational people to believe that evolution proceeds without any personal intervention by anything and without any guiding intelligence and without any forward plan.

— Nigel D

Nigel wrote:

"To turn the question around, though, Mats: Have you ever seen a personified, intelligent force creating new biological codes where there were none before?"

Exactly. Mats has been asked repeatedly for evidence, he has steadfastly refused to provisde any. Still he keeps demanding evidence from everyone else. Well I don't know about the rest of you but I for one am tired of trying to answer the same old nonsense over and over again. Either Mats produces some evidence or I intend to ignore him from now on.

Anyway, I think Jack answewred his question better than I could.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, it's fair to say that Darwinism is a religious view - as long as we mean Darwin's ideas at the time of writing On the Origin of Species. James Moore has described it as the last great work of natural theology, the search for God's laws in nature. Darwin set out with what Momme von Sydow describes as the theodicies of Paley and Malthus, and the empirical literal understanding of the Bible, as opposed to a more metaphysical or symbolic one, which characterised the theological approach of Paley, particularly in his Natural Theology. Paley and Malthus sought divine laws, unlike the creationist "magic man done it" of today, but they also believed that empirical evidence for God and Christianity was there to be found. Just like the IDers who can't believe that their God didn't leave empirical clues for them, or who can't believe in their God without the assumption that such clues exist. Unlike the church which increasingly adopted the ideas of Baden Powell in the 1850s, that religion and science had to be in separate realms. The IDers are unable to understand that they're opening religion to disproof.
Refs: Moore
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml
von Sydow
http://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/abt/1/sydow/von_Sydow_(2005)_Darwin_A_Christian_Undermining_Christianity.pdf

Just to throw a spanner in the works, it’s fair to say that Darwinism is a religious view - as long as we mean Darwin’s ideas at the time of writing On the Origin of Species.

Don't give mats such a difficult time, his thoughts are based on sound evidence, as seen in this video...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/peanut-butter-c.html

PvM: Needless to say that even as a Christian I never have found the 'God provides us with absolute morality' to be very relevant. Even if He did, how would we recognize the 'truth'?

So, then, please explain why examining lineages of fruit flies, orchids, fossil brachiopods, and or trilobites is an affront to the existence of God.

It does not do any such thing. Although this is a common myth spread by some to undermine faith and science. I believe this is the biggest lie of ID, namely that Darwinism denies the possibility of intelligent design or that Darwinism denies the existence of a God.

Since you accept that God could have ‘designed’ by evolutionary means, it seems that you fully are in agreement with evolutionary theory and thus Darwinism.

So why does ID reject Darwinism? Because it succesfully explains data which in the past was attributed to God.

Mats, you are confusing the philosophy of materialism with science. From a scientific point of view, evolution is an undirected process, and the theistic evolutionists accept that.

The theistic evolutionists accept the same science as the materialist but disagree about the metaphysics.

The reason we can conclude ‘design’ when we see ‘good morning’ written on a beach is because science can scientifically address the hypothesis of design via motive, means, opportunity

The point you seem to be making is that reproduction is impossible, without guidance or intervention from an intelligent agent.

I suspect that Mats is arguing from the POV that there is only one Truth and his is the only correct POV. He refuses to accept the distinction between denying God and saying nothing about God.

You are the one that says that evolution is impersonal and mindless. You have not said why this would be a problem.

All I can say here is that there exists no evidence to suggest that evolution is directed by any purpose or intelligence.

Thus, until we have evidence to demonstrate that evolution is directed by a purpose or intelligence, we use the working hypothesis that it is not directed by any purpose or intelligence.

The key point, Mats, is that we are compelled by logic and reason to assume that there is no intelligent director of evolution unless and until we discover evidence to the contrary. This is the principle of parsimony.

And, to answer your rather peurile question: no I have never observed an “impersonal” force creating new biological “codes”. I have, however, seen the evidence it left behind.

To turn the question around, though, Mats: Have you ever seen a personified, intelligent force creating new biological codes where there were none before?

it’s not the scientific method that makes people believe that life forms are the result of a impersonal/mindless process.

The exclusion of the supernatural causation is an assumption not derived from the empirics. but a philosophical assumption.

I can’t be in agreement with a theory that postulates ... There is no evidence, to date, that impersonal forces have ... But is it a “working hypothesis” or is it an assumption?

Hmm. Make that the prior and posterior data set, since you have trouble distinguish philosophical assumptions and scientific working hypotheses anyway and it is better english.

I can't be in agreement with a theory that postulates that living forms owe their existence to impersonal forces.

I know this won't have much impact on Mats, but I'll repeat that many scientists who are Christians accept the theory of evolution, based on the evidence, and accept that natural causes (what Mats calls "impersonal forces") are responsible for the diversity of life.

But this is the problem I have been saying. There is no evidence, to date, that impersonal forces have the ability to generate the complex forms in nature. How can a theory that lacks evidence even be considered scientific?

It is problematic, since there is no evidence that impersonal/mindless process are able to generate the complx life forms we see in Nature.

— Mats

All I can say here is that there exists no evidence to suggest that evolution is directed by any purpose or intelligence.

— Nigel D

There is no evidence, or you have assumed that none is there a priori?

— Mats

What would be evidence?

And isn’t even plosing such evidence “religious”, and therefore, “outside of science”?

Thus, until we have evidence to demonstrate that evolution is directed by a purpose or intelligence, we use the working hypothesis that it is not directed by any purpose or intelligence.

— Nigel D

But is it a “working hypothesis” or is it an assumption?

— Mats

It is not logic and reason that makes people assume that living forms are the result of mindless process,

— Mats

since the experience we have on a daily basis is that minds are always involved as to the source of artifacts with interdependent systems.

Secondly, this isn’t something that you have assumed as an hypothesis; you and other Darwinists have enshrined it to a dogma to such extent that even questioning it has become (suposedly) a violation of the Law (Remember Judge Jones?) In other words, we cannot question the impesonal nature of Darwinism without being demed as “religious”, “un-scientific”, or some other.

You have seen the evidence it left behind? What evidence has that mindless process left behind, that made you believe in Darwinism?

— Mats

No, I haven’t.

— Mats

But then again, it is not my belief that is tax suported, and encapsulated as “science”. It’s yours.

But this is the problem I have been saying. There is no evidence, to date, that impersonal forces have the ability to generate the complex forms in nature. How can a theory that lacks evidence even be considered 'scientific'?

Do we need to bring in the words of Julian Huxley, in 1959, or Dawkins' own words to elucidate that?

So, then, please explain why examining lineages of fruit flies, orchids, fossil brachiopods, and or trilobites is an affront to the existence of God.

Is it an afront to the existence of God?

It seems to me that teleology (unlike ID) is potentially testable. In fact, it seems to have been implicitly tested and rejected.

An hypothesis of teleology would I think start from the premise that evolution and development are similar processes. Evidence for teleology (and against natural selection based on variation)would support the hypothesis (or fail to falsify if you prefer) that species evolve along a pre-determined straight line. Thus if significant, major adaptive functions appeared immediately at the same time as major ecological shifts, that might support teleology. Also, the lack of a branching pattern (mentioned above) would suggest teleology.

In fact, teleology was a fairly popular view in the 19th century among many "Darwinists". The Marxists also liked teleology for obvious reasons.

Evidence for "Darwinism" (natural selection and variation based on a gradual or step by step process) is found in the fossil record's support for branching evolution and the lack of any clear, global direction to evolution.

Dobzhansky notably believed in teleology at the level of theology but rejected it at the level of science.

I could understand someone beleiving in teleology in 1870. But why do people want to bring in teleology now when over a century of evidence as well as the triumph of Mendelian genetics has put it to rest? And why do ID proponents all of a sudden want to bring in teleology? Are they just closet Hegelians?

In the absence of any evidence either way, we postulate two hypotheses: (1) evolution is impersonal and mindless and proceeds all by itself; (2) evolution requires intervention from something outside of nature. I have problems with hypothesis (2) because there is no way to test it.

Anything that is a priori outside of nature is not measureable or recordable, and not susceptible to empirical testing.

Recalling that our hypothetical scenario occurs in the absence of any evidence to decide the issue, why would you see hypothesis (1) as problematic?

No, there is quite definitely no evidence to indicate that evolution is directed by a purpose or intelligence.

I assume you mean, what evidence could there be to demonstrate teleology in evolution?

However, it is illogical to assume that there is some guiding purpose or intelligence without evidence to support that assumption.

(...)The more parsimonious, and therefore more logical, explanation is that there is no guiding intelligence or purpose to evolution.

You simply have no basis upon which to extrapolate from our everday experience with man-made objects to biological entities.

ID may not be taught as science in public schools in the US, because (1) this would be lying to children (since ID as espoused by Dembski, Wells, Behe, Johnson et al. is not science),

and (2) it would be indoctrination into fundamentalist Christianity (because the ID movement is simply fundamentalist creationism in a new suit).

ID as a concept has been rejected by the scientific community, because the arguments put forth to support it are non-sequiturs, arguments from ignorance, arguments from personal incredulity and very ill-informed sniping at MET.

If, at some future time, evidence were to come to light that indicated a guiding purpose or intelligence in evolution, it would be considered by the scientific community.

However, this evidence would need to be established absolutely solidly, because extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence

At present, there exists not one shred of evidence to support the supposition that evolution is guided by any kind of purpose or intelligence.

my beliefs are not supported by any taxes. I live in the UK, where the state religion is Anglican. I am not an Anglican.

Third, children in the entire world should be taught good science. It is an essential part of a full education these days.

Mats,

Why do you believe that a series of false dichotomies, questionable assumptions and extensive question begging makes for good argument?

Mats wrote (when asked if he had any evidence):

"No, I haven’t. But then again, it is not my belief that is tax suported, and encapsulated as “science”. It’s yours."

And there you have it. Mats the hypocrite demands evidence of others while he has none to offer himself. Mats the hypocrite condemns others for beliefs without eviodence, the very thing he is guilty of.

Well Mats, there is a reason why science is supported by the government, deal with it. You don't like it, you are free to leave. Of course, if you do, you will no longer have the protection of the constitution. No matter where you go, there will always be others who calim their views are valid and yours are not. Maybe then you will see the problem with trying to argue without evidence.

Mats being illogical: ”No, I haven’t. But then again, it is not my belief that is tax suported, and encapsulated as “science”. It’s yours.” [DS]And there you have it. Mats the hypocrite...

Mats, I don't have the time right now to address all of the questions you raise. However, I would very much appreciate it if you could answer some of my questions before moving on.

Additionally, I will no longer accept baseless assertions. You claim that the scientific community rejects ID for reasons other than ID's scientific vacuity, but you support this assertion with no evidence.

Let's see some evidence, Mats.

Stop dodging the issues and answer the questions.

Actually, the scientific theory of ID has been rejected by the Darwinian stablishment due to the religious implications, not due to lack of content and scientific rigor.

what has never been observed, meanigly, highly complex and specified information arising as the result of mindless process. I gave you two easier examples: Michelangelos’ sculptures and “Good Morning” on the beach shore. You and other Darwinists quickly agreed that considering the wind and the waves as the source of sculptures and written words respectively, would be ludicrous. However, you and other Darwinists turn thigns around, and say that the vastly superior information content present in livign forms is the result of the impersonal forces of nature.

I suspect that Mats is arguing from the POV that there is only one Truth and his is the only correct POV. He refuses to accept the distinction between denying God and saying nothing about God.

— Mats

But Darwinism says a great deal about God. I think it was last month that Majerus reported what he had observed relating to moths.

Like I said previously, it goes against we know about the law and order of the universe. Systems with interdependent algorithms and codes are exclusively the product of minds/intelligence. What Darwinists want us to believe is that, the highly specified systems in nature, and the programs that run them, are the result of a mindless process.

I agree with you. There is no evidence that evolution is guided by any kind of inteligence. The problem of course, is that I never said that it was. Perhaps you misunderstood me. What I say is that the process by which living forms came into existence cannot be a mindless process because mindless natural process don’t have the ability to do that.

Mats,

What is "Mind"? What is "Matter"? And how are these two different kinds of things?

Even if there is some "Universal Mind" might not this "mind" be made of material stuff?

And certainly, you don't propose that high school biology courses devote significant time and attention to discussing the ins and outs of Cartesian dualism? Or do you?

Isn't the idealist/materialist debate better left for college philosophy?

What I say is that the process by which living forms came into existence cannot be a mindless process because mindless natural process don’t have the ability to do that.

raven: your last comment was a neat summation of Mats' dysfunctinal and dishonest mindset. In fact, it's all that need be said about or to him.

Got to hand it to Mats. He managed to hit all the creo talking points without once demonstrating an ability to think.

And this is unusual in creationist circles...how? But yes, all of his talking-points are nothing but a rehash of "information theory" with a little bit of thinly-disguised "second law of thermodynamics" tossed in, all of it diluted and obscured by persistent arguments from (deliberate) ignorance. He doesn't even understand how transparently false his own arguments are, let alone the actual science.

Why we wasted so much time with such an obvious know-nothing obscurantist is unclear. Could be because the smarter creationists know they've lost the argument, and only the true morons have the chutzpah to show up here anymore...

Why we wasted so much time with such an obvious know-nothing obscurantist is unclear.

See, with folks like Mats, it's a point-counting thing. They may not think of it in those explicit terms, but that's what is going on. They're racking up points in heaven, or in God's scorebook, or somewhere.

By belonging to the "right" little fundamentalist sect, they get plenty of points. But since God may know about their previous sins, moments of "backsliding," or dark secrets of their "hearts," they need to keep totting up more points. Having "faith" gets 'em lots (believing in something with no objective evidence--or better yet, evidence to the contrary). Actually winning a convert to Christ (that is, to their version of Him) gains mega-points, but that doesn't happen very often. Like a fisherman makes lots of hopeful casts to occasionally hook a big one, Mats tosses out (rather pathetic) little casts (his one-liners that blow "darwinism" to smithereens), in hopes of converting one of us "atheistic darwinists" (BIG points there!). That's not a likely outcome, but he gets a persistence point or two for each cast anyway.

There are also bonus points awarded for "witnessing for Christ" before a hostile audience. And of course there are martyr points for being "censored" and discriminated against by a government, court system, and the "atheistic religion" (crap like this makes my head hurt) of darwinism.

He doesn't respond to questions or supply proof when asked? That's not the point. He's NOT arguing. He's just gaining another Jesus-point each time he quotes one of those lines his pastor taught him.

On the psychological level, he's also engaging in intellectual masturbation, getting his strokes by endlessly repeating his same 2 or 3 mantras (say "darwinist" some more--faster--now "censored"--ohhh--"materialism, materialism, MATERIALISM!" Oh God!).

Mats said: What evidence would convince you that life forms are the result of a Mind, as opposed being the result of an impersonal force?

What I say is that the process by which living forms came into existence cannot be a mindless process because mindless natural process don’t have the ability to do that.

Mats,

If you want evidence, check out the horse thread or the wormhole thread, or just read any scientific journal, or read the Talk Origins archive. Really dude, ignoring evidence will not make it go away. Saying it doesn't exist will not convince those who did the research themselves. Saying you don't believe it is not an argument. Admitting you don't have any yourself is a losing strategy.

The Pope is clearly a theistic evolutionist as were the last 3. He is clearly not an Intelligent Design advocate. You can be a Xian and still accept reality, science, and evolution. Many do so. Many scientists including some prominent evolutionary biologists, Morris, Miller, Collins, etc.. are Xians. You can even be Pope!!!

Just to get this straight. Most comments here seem to be saying that what we could label "darwinism" has, indeed, destroyed the idea that there is any design, purpose, guidance, thought, foresight behind the process of evolution. But Jack and Pvm seem to be saying that science cannot deal with matters of foresight or purpose or thought behind the processes of evolution.

Am I right?

If that's correct- who do we go with? Jack and Pvm or the others who disagree and say that science can, and has, shown that evolutionary processes have "no foresight, no guiding purpose and no intelligence, they can be answered quite satisfactorily."

If the previous quoted view is the "scientific" view, how can that possibly leave room for any God, especially any vague idea of a "Christian" God (as I believe Jack Krebs and Pvm have said they are both Christian)??

Is this the idea that science is different than religion and you're a scientist 6 days a week and a Christian 1 day? I personally cannot imagine a way to link the idea of a process without purpose, guidance, intelligence, foresight, etc. with even the most liberal idea of a Christian God. Maybe Jack and Pvm disagree with the others who say that science can, and has, destroyed the ideas above? I've never quite figured that idea out totally, so I wonder what various takes are on the subject.

Steven Sampson: Just to get this straight. Most comments here seem to be saying that what we could label "darwinism" has, indeed, destroyed the idea that there is any design, purpose, guidance, thought, foresight behind the process of evolution. But Jack and Pvm seem to be saying that science cannot deal with matters of foresight or purpose or thought behind the processes of evolution. Am I right? If that's correct- who do we go with? Jack and Pvm or the others who disagree and say that science can, and has, shown that evolutionary processes have "no foresight, no guiding purpose and no intelligence, they can be answered quite satisfactorily." If the previous quoted view is the "scientific" view, how can that possibly leave room for any God, especially any vague idea of a "Christian" God (as I believe Jack Krebs and Pvm have said they are both Christian)?? Is this the idea that science is different than religion and you're a scientist 6 days a week and a Christian 1 day? I personally cannot imagine a way to link the idea of a process without purpose, guidance, intelligence, foresight, etc. with even the most liberal idea of a Christian God. Maybe Jack and Pvm disagree with the others who say that science can, and has, destroyed the ideas above? I've never quite figured that idea out totally, so I wonder what various takes are on the subject.

PC(USA) wrote: Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

Good comments by SWT - he said much of what I thinking in response to Steven's post.

Steven,

It does appear to be a contradiction, but really it isn't. It is just a matter of two different interpretations of the same reality. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the two views are not really incompatible.

Take a game of poker for example. One player need the money badly, so he prays that God will help him. That player gets a royal flush, bets big and wins a lot of money, just in time to save his house from being taken over by the mortgage company. Now you can interpret that as evidence for the existence of God. You can say that the rules of the game have been set up so that he can win. You can interpret the exact outcome as being extremely unlikely. You can even claim that this is evidence for the power of prayer. However, there is another possible explanation. No laws of nature have been broken. The event, though extremely unlikely, could certainly have occurred without divine intervention. It is also unlikely that the other players will draw the same conclusions, especially if they were also praying hard to win. You would need to do extensive testing in order to determine if the result were repeatable and in order to determine if prayer really did alter the odds significantly. Here is the point, no matter how many tests you did, no matter how hard you tried, you could never falsify the God hypothesis. In order to do that, you would have to know what outcome God wanted. So, no one can stop you from inferring the existence of God if you so choose. However, neither can anyone prove conclusiely that God exists if you choose not to believe. That is a matter of faith.

The same reasoning applies to evolution. Although the production of the current state of human beings is extremely unlikely, it is possible that it could have occurred by chance. In fact, if you are willing to assume that there is really nothing special about humans, (i.e. the dominant sentient species could have been an insect or a dinosaur and might still think it was special), then maybe it isn't really so improbable after all. Just as there could be many possible winning hands in poker, so the probability of any one hand is irrelevent. If we knew the mind of God, we could tell if she planned humans in detail from the start and set thinigs in motion to insure their evolution. If we can't know the mind of God, then you are free to choose whether humans are the result of ordinary evolutionary processes alone, or whether they were the result of planning and foresight on the part of a creator who used ordinary evolutionary processes to produce the end result. God could have worked through evolution if she wanted to, just like she could have arranged for the card dealer to deal a straight flush without violating the laws of nature. Either way, no one can prove you wrong, since your conclusion is a personal interpretation.

What you are not free to do is assume that an omnipotent creator poofed humans into existence, fixed and perfect, six thousand years ago and that that creator is worthy of praise and worship. That is contrary to the evidence and, even if true, makes the creator into a lier and a fraud whose only purpose is to deceive.

I am not speaking for Jack or PvM here. These are my own thoughts, they can speak for themselves. I respect their opinions and their right to their own personal interpretations. Others are of course free to disagree as well.

David FW: I think you've been confused by something that Evangelicals don't like to admit in print: many of them don't consider Catholics to be Christian. To them, saying that the Pope supports evolution is irrelevant to the question of whether one can be a Christian and accept evolution.

IMO, the best book on reconciling an argument for theism and teleology at a cosmic level is Theodosius Dobzhansky's classic: "The Biology of Ultimate Concern."

Miller's book has more science, but IMO, Miller never really reconciles his science and religion. Instead, he tends to compartmentalize them and just combine "orthodox" Darwinism with orthodox Catholicism, but never really brings them together.

Dobzhansky is actually much more sophisticated theologically and makes an effort to actually bring the science and the religion together into a unified world view. One may quarrel with whether or not this is posssible or whether or not Dobzhansky succeeds, but it is a more intellectually satisfying work for the effort.

Ken Miller in my estimation (not that anyone should particularly care) is a really good biologist and probably a fantastic teacher (judging by his teaching materials, textbook and public speaking). But he is a crappy theologian.

Chip Poirot: IMO, the best book on reconciling an argument for theism and teleology at a cosmic level is Theodosius Dobzhansky's classic: "The Biology of Ultimate Concern." ... Dobzhansky is actually much more sophisticated theologically and makes an effort to actually bring the science and the religion together into a unified world view. One may quarrel with whether or not this is posssible or whether or not Dobzhansky succeeds, but it is a more intellectually satisfying work for the effort. ...

There are many views of a deity which can be integrated with the picture science presents us of the physical world and its history. The major problem many people have with attempting to reconcile religion and science is that they have a particular god with particular attributes in mind.

The problem with having a particular god in mind is that there is no evidence that humans know anything about that god no matter what they think from reading "holy books". Therefore the battles rage over what is acceptable about the nature of god and what is acceptable about what scientific evidence implies about the nature of this preconceived god.

Other more open views about what a supreme deity might be suggest that we are supposed to find out from our investigations of our universe (which is a far-from-completed process), and what we are able to comprehend as we evolve. Maybe the so-called holy books are only the barest preliminary hints, full of errors and misconceptions, from primitive understandings of Nature thousands of years ago. Perhaps preaching that these represent the complete picture of a deity is hubris and closed-minded demagoguery.

Mankind's view has changed over the centuries, and it is true that science has been a major impetus for those changes. Any theist taking the findings of science seriously, as we should, will, I think, move towards this broader view of God.

By the way, in an earlier post Steven Sampson wrote, "as I believe Jack Krebs and Pvm have said they are both Christian." PvM has clearly said that he was once a YEC and is now a theistic evolutionist. I, however, am interested in describing various types of religious beliefs irrespective of whether they are or are not my own. Whether I am or am not a theist is irrelevant - what I am trying to do is describe a religious position, theistic evolution, which is common, often misrepresented, and proves by counterexample that the creationist "Wedge" belief that science = atheism is wrong.

what I am trying to do is describe a religious position, theistic evolution, which is common, often misrepresented, and proves by counterexample that the creationist "Wedge" belief that science = atheism is wrong.

Personally, I don't feel any strong need for a belief in a specific deity, or even a vague deity. Believing one way or the other wouldn't make much difference in how I live.

On the other hand, I find the study of religion and theology to be fascinating. Furthermore, I am as of yet unconvinced that God does not exist, though for the life of me, I am not sure how one would go about settling the question-or even getting a start on it.

The first problem it seems is that any existence proof has to start with some concept of what it is that you think does and does not exist. I find myself extremely intrigued by Charles Peirce's argument for the reality of God. Peirce's God is an agapistic principle, or Absolute, that unifies reality. But Peirce's God is not necessarily static or fixed.

The other issue that I wonder about is that when applying the method of reason and experience I can't seem to come up with any good clear reason to justify belief in a Deity.

At the same time, it does seem possible that later elements of Wittgenstein are correct: maybe there are some areas that just are not subject to the verification principle and are just not decidable. They just are.

This is about the best I can come up with.

The first problem it seems is that any existence proof has to start with some concept of what it is that you think does and does not exist.

I know this won’t have much impact on Mats, but I’ll repeat that many scientists who are Christians accept the theory of evolution, based on the evidence, and accept that natural causes (what Mats calls “impersonal forces”) are responsible for the diversity of life.

You appear to have intentionally forgotten that you, yourself, said that it is totally impossible to be a Christian and reconcile with evolutionary biology. So, can you answer the question, or do you intend to evade it as with everybody else’s questions?

“Despite the attempt by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory.” - Denton, Michael (1985) “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, page 66

Majerus speaks for himself and not for all scientists/”Darwinists,” and you, sir, are a coward for answering my introduction and not my main point.

In fact, the evidence does indeed show that these systems are the result of natural processes.

You claim you are not anti-science, then I assume that you understand that Darwinian theory says NOTHING about ‘mindless’, ‘purpose’ etc?

What I say is that the process by which living forms came into existence cannot be a mindless process because mindless natural process don’t have the ability to do that.

And you know that mindless processes cannot produce living forms?

1) The fact that some Christians accept that impersonal forces did all the creating, doesn’t mean it’s true. 2) There is no evidence to date that impersonal, mindeless forces have the ability to create the interdependent systems present in nature.

Mats: Stanto said:

You appear to have intentionally forgotten that you, yourself, said that it is totally impossible to be a Christian and reconcile with evolutionary biology. So, can you answer the question, or do you intend to evade it as with everybody else’s questions?

Since Darwinism relies on the unscientfic assumption that mindless forces have creative abilities, and that those mindless forces did all the creating, that view is at odds with classical Christianity, which postulates the world owes its existence to a Mind. Remember the quote I gave:

“Despite the attempt by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory.” - Denton, Michael (1985) “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, page 66

Logically speaking, you can't be a CHristian and believe that the world and all its life forms are the result of a mindless, natural, impersonal force.

SWT, obviously, when Jesus said "do not judge, lest ye be judged in return" does not apply to creationists like Mats, at all, as creationists are exempt from such piddling restrictions.

Also, Mats, can you explain why, if Intelligent Design is a superior explanatory "theory," no Intelligent Design proponent has ever deigned to attempt to demonstrate this superiority by explaining the Intelligent Design behind extinct animal groups like why the Intelligent Designer saw fit to allow placoderms, trilobites, and dinosaurs to dominate the world's ecosystems, and yet, exterminate them nonetheless? You appear to be a knowledgeable ID proponent, can you explain why this was so?

Mats blinkeredly asked: What evidence? [that the world and all its life forms are the result of a mindless, natural, impersonal force]

Mats,

You seem intent on begging questions rather than trying to understand the position of theistic evolutionists. I'm not saying I am one so much as I think it is an interesting and potentially valid argument.

A theistic evolutionist would argue that there is indeed "Mind" behind the blind, material forces we see at work. In other words, the Mind shapes and directs natural (material) forces in a way to do its creative work. When we look at a Rembrandt painting for example we still recognize that Rembrandt used paint, canvas, brushes, etc. to accomplish his end.

In the same way, a theistic evolutionist would argue that the variation and selection algorithm is the means Mind used to create an end. From our vantage point, what we see is the material forces.

The remainder of what you say rests on very debatable assumptions about differences between Mind and matter. And of course, you get into the infinite regress problem. If the existence of order, beauty, harmony and "Mind" in the world requires a Mind to create it, then why does Mind not require a mind behind it, and then a mind behind that, and so on. Why is not turtles all the way down?

And how do you know that Mind is not a property of matter, or for that matter, how do you know Mind is even different from matter?

You seem to have memmorized a lot of stock philosophical arguments, yet spent no time thinking them through or considering alternatives.

Mats seems like a less articulate version of the young man who argued for YEC on a record-long thread here a few months back. But no matter the level of articulateness, the same brain washing comes through.

This same mantra appears over and over again in the TV preacher's sermons, in the fundamentalist literature, and in the political activities of the Discovery Institute and other propaganda organizations. It is memorized stuff, recited without comprehension, done with affectations of learning, and filled with the angry self-righteousness of minds that think they have the corner on morality.

I suspect much of their anger and the accusations they direct at others are simply projections of what they themselves are really like on the inside.

The amount of time they waste on memorizing propaganda phrases could be better spent doing some actual learning.

Logically speaking, you can’t be a CHristian and believe that the world and all its life forms are the result of a mindless, natural, impersonal force.

Logically speaking, you can’t be a CHristian and believe that the world and all its life forms are the result of a mindless, natural, impersonal force.

Mats excommunicating the majority of the world's Xians: Logically speaking, you can't be a CHristian and believe that the world and all its life forms are the result of a mindless, natural, impersonal force.

Mats wrote:

"Logically speaking, you can’t be a CHristian and believe that the world and all its life forms are the result of a mindless, natural, impersonal force."

Logically speaking, you can't make that statement. For example, you can believe that all kinds of things, such as hurricanes, tornados, lightning strikes, earthquakes, etc. are the all result of mindless, natural, impersonal forces and still be a Christian. In fact the Bible is quite specific about the requirements for salvation and choosing to believe that God is personally behind every natural event that ever occurs is definately not part of the criteria. There is only one thing a real Christian has to believe, and it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Maybe this guy should spend more time reading the Bible. Besides, if your religion does conflict with reality, maybe it's time for a new religion.