ID Critic Attacks Theistic Evolutionists Again
by MikeGeneAs we have seen before, the author of the #1 Science Blog has lashed out at theistic evolutionists, accusing them of being a cowardly form of creationist. In case anyone missed that the first time around, the #1 Science Blog makes the same point again:
The second big issue is the complaint that I can't tell the difference between a theistic evolutionist and an intelligent design creationist.
That's a fair complaint, actually. I can't.
Pretend I'm a Martian (not hard to do, I suppose; to a lot of people, my complete rejection of "faith" as a reason for believing in something seems to make me alien, anyway). Explain it to me. I even explicitly laid that out as a question at the end of my post; no one seems to have tried. At best, what Jason and poke do is point out that there is a difference in tactics"”the theistic evolutionists are willing to move their god out of gaps in our knowledge as they are closed and place them in other gaps; the IDists want to fight to keep the gaps open, usually by misrepresenting the science that threatens them. That's a fine distinction by me; I propose then that we just keep kicking the theistic evolutionists away, since they're so meek. Will they turn into IDists when we threaten some particularly juicy and cherished gap?
May 15th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Funny how they tend to think interpretations are the same thing as factoids, eh? Interpretations are a dime a dozen. Always will be.
In the meantime, it's good to see PZ squander any possible credibility he has beyond his tight-knit Klan. He begged out of Yearly Kos this year even though he was to be sci-panel mod just like last year when he was upstaged by Wesley Clark and got his nose so bent out of shape. Seems he'd rather go to Atheist Camp instead. I'm hoping that means he's giving up politics. Lord knows politics doesn't need him!
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I agree with the author on this one. I fail to find any substantive difference between an IDer and a theistic evolutionist. I appreciate Michael Denton, a theistic evolutionist at the time of writing "Nature's Destiny", who recognizes that his position is solidly telic — id.
I would be happy to see the theistic evolutionist scientists abandon their pretence that they are somehow other than ID, and join our camp. It would be a significant increase in our expertise base.
Comment by bFast — May 15, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
What strikes me as funnny is that people like PZ are unable to recognize evidence of their own faith. It comes in the form of a conclusion that the inability to answer some questions, i.e. a gap, is already filled by a response that falls within certain defined perameters. IOW, although the details are not evident, we already know that life resulted from a process that can be defined strictly in terms of a series of chemical reactions devoid of any telic or intelligent input. That's faith; not an empirically supported position.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I guess that confirms it then that PZ is anti-knowledge.
All knowing rests on unproveable first principles at some level.
These things are taken on the "blindest" of faith by definition.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 15, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
The irony is that I remember when DNAunion would ask us what was the difference between a Theisitic evolutionist, and a non-Theistic evolutionist. No one was ever able to explain the difference to him.
Comment by Bilbo — May 15, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Hmm…I realize I misquoted DNAunion. He asked what was the empirical difference between Theistic Evolution and non-Theistic evolution. And as far as I know, there isn't any.
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
No, I wouldn't expect so in general. They expect science to fill in all of its gaps. That is the point.
Theistic evolution explicitly affirms God, but also holds that God's presence or activity will not be detectable to science. Science can do its business within the bounds of presuming naturalism and finding natural-cause explanations for natural effects. Meanwhile, God is not expected to ever get noticably in the way. Without needing to consider any scientific evidence, an alliance is established that promises in principle that God will never violate science's methodological naturalism.
By contrast, the Intelligent Design inference makes the claim that intelligent agents can produce effects that unguided processes cannot, so one can infer the participation of intelligent agency from a distinguishing effect. However, the intelligent agent need not be God. An atheist could still affirm ID inferences. In fact, for most ID inferences, the intelligent agent inferred is known or expected to be human.
When ID infers intelligent agency for a "natural" effect (e.g. biological life), this becomes controversial because it can violate certain understandings of what is "scientific". To that extent, TE tends to reject ID due to the truce/alliance with assume-unguided-natural-causes-for-natural-effects science.
I was going to say I'm not sure why it should be so hard to distinguish, but then I realized why it is hard for some people. It is hard if you refuse to understand ID as it is proposed, and instead insist on seeing it as creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Likewise, TE becomse a "meek" creationism. So THEY are all just various creationists — what more thinking or discrimination is needed?
Comment by eric — May 16, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
None. It is easy to be an anti-IDist. Put your brain in neutral and spout cliches.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
As I see it, TEs are teleologists, but they don't think the teleology can be detected in the empircal world. IDists think teleology can, in some way, be detected. The hardcore IDists think it has been detected. Softies like me think it's an open and interesting question worthy of pursuit.
Non-teleologists think we're all crazy. Or stupid.
Comment by MikeGene — May 16, 2007 @ 11:08 pm