Becoming what you most dislike
by KrauzeOh boy. It all started when Jacob Weisberg wrote a piece for Slate, titled "Evolution vs. Religion: Quit pretending they're compatible" (see Mike's comments here) in which he stresses that evolution and religion really are competing for the same turf. Julian Sanchez echoed his views, and Timothy Sandefur, writing on The Panda's Thumb, endorsed it, saying "Julian Sanchez has it exactly right." Nick Matzke, another contributor to PT reacted by posting a critique of Weisberg and Sanchez. Sandefur responded, as did Paul Myers, a developmental biologist who in addition to being a contributor to PT also runs Pharyngula.
In reading through all of this material (and the discussion continues in the comments to each of those posts!) a peculiar thing struck me: Some of the ID critics are sounding a lot like creationists on this topic. For example, many creationists claim that Darwin's loss of faith was caused by his thoughts on evolution (as opposed to the death of his daughter Anne), yet we find Weisberg making the same claim:
"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."
Fortunately, Carl Zimmer was there to clean up the mess. Or what about Myers, who writes:
"What Nick is doing is promoting one kind of religious belief, a sort of abstract deism, as compatible with evolutionary biology. Sure it is; I'll agree with him one hundred percent. But there are probably about as many people who practice that particularly fuzzy sort of religion as there are atheists, and what he is actually doing is pushing a kind of sectarian faith that will only serve to annoy the Baptist and Methodist and Catholic and miscellaneous Evangelical creationists. In order for the two to be compatible, we're insisting that these religions strip out articles of faith that they may consider indispensable. "
Where have I heard this before? Oh yes, here it is:
"Naturalistic evolution is consistent with the existence of "God" only if by that term we mean no more than a first cause which retires from further activity after establishing the laws of nature and setting the natural mechanism in motion."
Phillip E. Johnson, "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", First Things (1990)
What's interesting is how ID critics for years have been talking as if Phillip Johnson's views on the relationship between evolution and religion are hopelessly wrong, yet here we find Paul the scientist saying the same as Phil the creationist.
August 15th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Phillip E. Johnson, creationist
Telic Thoughts makes an interesting admission: What's interesting is how ID critics for years have been talking as if Phillip Johnson's views on the relationship between evolution and religion are hopelessly wrong, yet here we find Paul the…
Trackback by Pharyngula — August 15, 2005 @ 11:19 am
August 15th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
It would seem that they are quotemining you at Pharyngula. You were using the terms of ID critics to make an ironic comment on a situation, and PZ treats it as an actual admission on your part. That in itself is ironic.
The blogosphere is like a fun house with mirrors!
Comment by matt_nadler — August 15, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
August 15th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Darwin before the Origins of Species in his unpublished notebooks :"˜Origins of Man now proved. Metaphysics must flourish. He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke'
If Darwin was right (never mind some details) about nature's diversity, intricacy/complexity and adaptation as being the consequence of heritable genetic variations and natural environmental selection certain metaphysical implications for purpose/meaning/intelligibility follow Darwin seems to have thought"¦ (although I'm not really sure on the context of this above quote or what metaphysics Darwin thought baboon taught"¦)
Comment by de_nacisse — August 15, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
August 15th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Matt:
Yep, sure looks that way. Well, he did promise to get out his brass knuckles to Save Civilization.
It looks like Myers is engaged in damage control. He now wants to make a distinction between bad religion and good religion. He says there are "religions that can abide alongside science reasonably" but he doesn't name them (nor define what he means by "˜reasonably'). From his original comment we can tell that he is talking about – a "fuzzy" kind of "abstract deism." Krauze is right "“ he sounds like Johnson.
Comment by MikeGene — August 15, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
August 15th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
PZ is sounding like a creationist???
lol! Oh dear, he better run before our ACME label makers get to him.
Well, Johnson actually said something even more radical. He said Theistic Evolutionists (like Ken Miller, Keith Miller, etc.) were worse than atheists! (Jack Krebs I think reported hearing those words from Johnson)
The latest reaction by the Atheists was actually predicted by Bill Dembski in his essay What Every Theologian Should Know about ID
So the poor TE's have are being attacked from both sides.
Thus, I hearby invite the TEs to stop being prodigal sons, and come home and be with us cool guys, the IDists. You can still be evolutionists, like Mike Behe, and be an IDists. You won't be despised in the big tent if you support ID.
The TE's have far less at stake than the atheists if ID advances. I think the skirmishes are an indication that atheists are feeling especially marginalized lately. I emphasize, I have some dear atheist friends, and no slight on them. They have confided that they feel marginalized over the last several years. It's starting to show in the blog sphere…..
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 15, 2005 @ 2:31 pm
August 15th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Hi Salvador,
"PZ is sounding like a creationist???
lol! Oh dear, he better run before our ACME label makers get to him."
Some of the ID critics are busy with their own label-makers. Check out this, from the comments to Matzke's post:
"I don't believe you, and neither will anyone else (except perhaps Theobald). Certainly no one else will accept that that is "pro-science" or "pro-reasoning"."
What did Matzke do? Propose that we teach Genesis to school children? No, he was just explaining why he was an agnostic instead of an atheist.
Comment by Krauze — August 15, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
August 16th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Gee, if we're starting to tell the truth, let's tell all of it: Creationism is anti-Christian, and so is "intelligent design." Both rely on a deceptive creator to start with, and both reject the basic Christ story, that the salvation of the world has humble, not royal, origins.
The really odd thing is that PZ Myers' version of evolution is probably closer to the gospel than any form of creationism. Worse, few creationists know the gospels well enough to recognize the problem.
Comment by edarrell — August 16, 2005 @ 10:58 am
August 16th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Edarrell,
Today, a variety of folks are considering the possibility that intelligent causation is inferrable from biotic and physical reality. How is that deceptive, or Christ rejecting? How is that something besides a rather ordinary inquiry into our phenomenal world?
In Messiah,
Matt
Comment by matt_nadler — August 16, 2005 @ 11:51 am
August 16th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Wow, Edarrell is also starting to sound like a creationist.
Comment by Krauze — August 16, 2005 @ 12:08 pm
February 4th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
edarrell,
"Gee, if we're starting to tell the truth, let's tell all of it: Creationism is anti-Christian, and so is 'intelligent design.' Both rely on a deceptive creator to start with, and both reject the basic Christ story, that the salvation of the world has humble, not royal, origins."
No, Creationism is most definitely not "anti-Christian", as it is completely consistent with the Bible, and the Bible is entirely self-consistent. Neither is "Intelligent Design" anti-Christian. Neither "rely on a deceptive creator to start with" – the seeming "deception" is merely the result of faulty reasoning and biased judgments coming from the minds of those who prefer not to see God or His hand in Nature. That is, there is no valid scientific evidence which contradicts the Creation story in Genesis; especially, there is no valid scientific evidence that indicates there has been no Design in Nature.
As far as the "basic Christ story", and your claim that the salvation of the world has "humble, not royal, origins": the "basic Christ story" is that Christ had ROYAL, not humble, origins, in His "origination" (He was [and is] GOD, after all); it was merely in His becoming a man that He took on a "humble origin", in being born to a "humble" family in a "humble" community, and living a "humble" life. Beyond this, "Intelligent Design", as a "field", has nothing whatsoever to say about the "salvation of the world" – there might be evidence of a "Design" which itself has implications or suggestions for this, but "Intelligent Design" as an intellectual enterprise does not have this as a foundational requirement or teaching. Neither does "Intelligent Design", as an intellectual discipline, say anything about the "origins of Christ", whether they were "humble" or "royal". I honestly don't know where you came up with some of this stuff, actually.
Comment by Douglas — February 4, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Hmm…I never really knew Nick Matzke had that side to him.
Comment by Arik Soong — February 5, 2006 @ 12:36 am