More on ID and Creationism
by MikeGeneWhile ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists. No less than John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, comments as follows:
The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.
Of course, the critics still confuse themselves and others by trying to have it both ways. I was reading Behe's Amazon blog and noted the following assertion from Jerry Coyne:
it's palpably clear from Jones's written opinion that he saw right through Behe and his transparent creationism. (emphasis added)
Okay, but Richard Dawkins tells us differently:
Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as "trivial" the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?
Combine the logic of the two scientists and we find that acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish is transparent creationism. Which, I suppose, should not be surprising since the critics have also accused Ken Miller and Chris Mooney of being creationists.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Silly argument: I believe in A and B, therefore anyone who accepts B must accept A.
There are obviously different kinds of creationism. For example, the very transparent and unsophisticated biblical kind, and the slightly less transparent ID kind.
Comment by Raevmo — July 10, 2007 @ 8:34 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:09 am
You write, "There are obviously different kinds of creationism." Yet this is just an escape hatch used to prop up the creationist fabrication, where definitions are invented post-hoc to rationalize the application of a rhetorical label. I could just as easily argue there are obviously different kinds of communists or traitors in order to rationalize the application of these labels. In fact, I could also come up with "a kind of creationism" that would allow me to define Dawkins as a creationist.
Rather than play these games, why not deal with the points I laid on the table?
1. Combine the logic of the two scientists and we find that acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish is transparent creationism.
2. Which, I suppose, should not be surprising since the critics have also accused Ken Miller and Chris Mooney of being creationists.
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2007 @ 9:09 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Raevmo:
For ID critics like this it is necessary to, not just depict natural processes, but ward off conclusions consistent with divine possibilities.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 9:21 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:22 am
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," from Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays (Harcourt, 1950), p. 83.
Comment by P A Nelson — July 10, 2007 @ 9:22 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Mike:
But you don't properly combine the logic. Coyne calls Behe a transparent creationist, Dawkins says Behe believes in common descent. It doesn't follow that believe in common descent implies being a creationist.
Comment by Raevmo — July 10, 2007 @ 9:37 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Hi MikeGene,
But Behe in a thread below qualifies that belief in common descent by saying that the arguments against it are well taken, and he only believes in common descent because he believes it occurred through design. IOW, in Behe's model, the ID has frequently engaged in creative activity to mold new species from old ones, very similar to what an old earth creationist would believe, rather than God creating every "kind" in one week. His belief in frequent intervention in the history of life by the ID over billions of years has no basis in science; its merely a question of when and how God performed his miracles. Behe expressly rejects common descent being possible as a natural process.
The ICR of course rejects Behe's OEC views since they are committed to biblical literalism, plus the ICR is fighting for market share with IDists in the sale of books and videos. They both have the same target market for their goods: creationists. One emphasizes that ole time religion, and the other claims to be more "scientific". Wendy's criticizes McDonalds; that doesn't make McDonalds health food.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 9:45 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Hi Raevmo,
You write, "But you don't properly combine the logic. Coyne calls Behe a transparent creationist, Dawkins says Behe believes in common descent. It doesn't follow that believe in common descent implies being a creationist."
That's because they contradict each other. There is no such thing as a creationist who accepts the fact that "we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish." The denial of human evolution is a central tenet of creationism.
Hi Paul,
The quote from Orwell is outstanding and perfectly explains why so many critics cling to their use of the C-word. It has become their intellectual crutch.
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2007 @ 9:51 am
July 10th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Yes, we know there are all sorts of post-hoc ways to prop up the creationist fabrication, but they all collapse on the wisdom of Orwell (see the above quote). Why not instead truly support your intellectual crutch by providing an exhaustive list of creationists who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2007 @ 9:58 am
July 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Hi MikeGene,
Behe, for one. Simply because YECs think God molded man from dust, and Behe thinks God molded man from apes, doesn't make him any less a creationist. An act of divine creation is an act of divine creation, regardless of whether or not it conforms to a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are many creation beliefs which do not conform to Genesis; are all those people, by definition, not creationists?
P.S. I'm not overly familiar with all the details of OEC beliefs, so it may be that some of them may think it is not heretical to believe that God molded man from apes rather than dust. Either way, however, its clearly a belief in a divine creator.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 10:46 am
July 10th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I have found that when pressed to defend this twisted logic, most ID critics will even label Fred Hoyle a creationist. The word is basically meaningless when placed in the hands of a anti-ID polemicist.
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2007 @ 11:05 am
July 10th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Hi Mike
This does get to definitions. If creationism is defined as the movement that we all know as "scientific creationism" which is the young earth, denial of evolution, flood geology stuff, then some ID followers are creationists but most of the leaders in the movement are not. Behe isn't. Dembski isn't.
On the other hand, I think the real isssue between the biologists and IDists comes over the issue of intervention. So, I would suggests the terms "creationist" and "interventionists" to make a distinction. I believe that most ID leaders are interventionists not creationists as defined above.
What drives, in my opinion, the mindset of the Christian conservative interventionist is first scripture like the creationists. They may not take creation myths literally, but they do derive knowledge from them as to the nature of the creator and the creator's actions. The Christian creator is one who intervenes in the creation and development of life. Hence, they expect to find evidence of that and believe that it can be empirical evidence. Their redefinition of science is derived from prior religious belief and a specific attitude toward scripture. Many and perhaps most biologists simply don't believe this and see no need to make a distinction as to whether this God has created full-blown organisms, parts of organisms or just tweaked the genome. It's intervention. That, for them, is creationism. I see their point. I also wish they would make better distinctions. But, in a war, you just identify the enemy and then shoot.
The critical issue for a biologist pertains solely to the development of life because that's what they do. Not OOL. Not cosmology.
If you believe in intervention of any kind after OOL, you are a creationist. I can accept this generalization, but it's not nuanced or historical.
ID critics also fail to recognize the existence of a brand of IDist who do not approach the subject with a priori religious belief and who also wish that scientists would just stick to uncovering the "facts" of the universe and stop trying to convert the rest of us to their metaphysics like the religionists have been doing for ages.
Comment by bj — July 10, 2007 @ 11:18 am
July 10th, 2007 at 11:20 am
So, in your opinion, is Ed Brayton a creationist? He's a deist, afterall.
Comment by macht — July 10, 2007 @ 11:20 am
July 10th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Hi, macht
I'm not talking about whether you think there is a God. If you think God directly intervened to create humans, regardless of what material he used to do so, then you are a creationist. Behe thinks humans are related to apes the way YECs think humans are related to dust; he expressly denies that humans could have evolved from apes by way of a natural evolutionary process.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
You of course didn't answer my question. Brayton wrote,
What's the difference between "molding from dust," "molding from apes," and "molding from prior conditions"
Comment by macht — July 10, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Aagcobb:
If one believes that an initial organism was created by God does that define him as a creationist? If another believes the defining event that conferred humanity, was the divine act of conferring an immortal soul to an organism, does that make him a creationist?
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Hi macht,
Brayton isn't suggesting that God directly intervenes in the natural course of the universe. Thus he can engage in scientific reseach based on methodological naturalism. Behe, like other creationists, says that God does directly intervene in the develpment of life, thus evolutionary theory cannot explain the current diversity of life without invoking a miracle performed by God. Its not a question of whether you believe in God, but whether you believe that the universe is natural or magical. I believe in a God who doesn't have to perform magic for the universe to develop in accordance with his will, so its possible for humans to develop accurate scientific models of the universe through observation and experimentation.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Aagcobb:
I believe God could front load the universe so that it subsequently behaved as conventionally specified. But that theological proposition is a poor substitute for evidence that it actually occurred that way.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Hi Bradford,
If one thinks that evolutionary theory can explain all the diversity of life on earth, but believes the first living thing was created by God, that is,obviously, a creationist belief. How can one believe in the creation of life and not be a creationist? As long as he's not promoting bad arguments against abiogenesis, I wouldn't have a quarrell with him.
The soul is part of the supernatural world, not the natural world, so I wouldn't consider that a creationist belief; it doesn't represent a belief in divine intervention in the development of the natural universe.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Notice how Aagcobb has stacked the cards by broadly redefining creationism. Of course Aagcobb does not explain how 'his' God escapes his own definition. Indeed, I would dare to say that under Aagcobb's poorly constructed definition a God which sets up the parameters of life by infusing the universe with those specifications and goals is just as much creationism as any other 'interventionist' theory.
Comment by Jean — July 10, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Aagcobb:
Are you advancing the view that it should be legally permissible to cite arguments and evidence against abiogenesis in public schools?
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Hi Jean,
Please, tell me what your definition of creationism is, and why it excludes a divine act of creation of life by God.
Thats your opinion. I don't have any quarrell with mainstream science, nor do I ever expect to, since I don't invoke miracles to explain observable phenomenon within the universe.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Hi Bradford,
Please note that I qualified my position by saying:
If public schools want to have an advanced science course on abiogenesis discussing the research, competing hypotheses and unresolved issues, thats fine with me, as long as its not a cover to promote the pseudoscientific claims of creationists. A person who unreservedly accepts mainstream evolutionary theory isn't likely to be an enemy of science.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Mike,
I concur with your point. Here is my take: The ICR's continued misunderstandings about science.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 10, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hi Bradford.
Its a question of faith; I don't believe acts of God are amenable to scientific study. Creationists and IDists theological proposition also lacks evidence, and even worse, the evidence shows that life didn't actually develop the way most of them propose.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
For what it is worth, here is my take on this.
Regardless of the label, a presumption that a being or beings created the universe is inherently metaphysical and religious, IMO.
This does not mean it is false.
I happen to believe this means it isn't scientific (because of NOMA).
I find the presumption that life on Earth was the result of an Intelligent Designer who isn't the designer of the universe to be not credible.
To start with, surely Earth would be worthy of the formation of a committee, a designing committee. And then we get into the definition of intelligence (ability to learn or adapt). Did the committee members use on-the-job training or had they done this before?
If you take this as mocking ID science, I may have just made my point, because I am not.
I can see scientific evidence for purpose and retrocausality.
This evidence supports EAM or Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR.
If the ID MOVEMENT put forward mechanistic hypotheses like these, we wouldn't be arguing about whether or not ID was creationism.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 10, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Aagcobb:
So if a deist believes G-d set up the universe to unfold and result in man (man's form the result of precisely set initial conditions and laws) then that is different than if G-d set up some of the initial conditions and laws, then set some more prior conditions later?
The intervention can occur before or after the Big Bang, or both, but in all cases, the laws and conditions are set by a god to result in mankind.
So if a god "directly intervening to create humans" makes one a creationist, all deists are also creationists (including Brayton). The intervention is there; the time of the intervention is the only matter of difference.
Comment by Atom — July 10, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I'm confused. Aren't there at least two Biblical abiogenesis stories? When you say "against abiogenesis," are you expressing an opinion that life has always been present, or what?
Comment by JAM — July 10, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
JAM:
C'mon JAM, you're clever, not confused. Advance the point of view that a life from non-life event was a designed process and you will quickly realize that abiogenesis is understood to mean unfettered chemical causality.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Hi Atom,
There are EAs who would agree with you that all theists are creationists. I expect that those who self-identify as creationists would not consider deists to be creationists, nor would deists identify themselves as creationists. There is, IMO, a distinct difference between those who think that the universe functions naturally, and those who believe God directly intervenes in the universe to change what would have otherwise occurred.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 10, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
"Abiogenesis" simply means life from non-life. It either happened or it didn't, whether it was designed or happened spontaneously. The Bible clearly says that it happened.
This is a mirror of the confusion between evolution (a phenomenon) and evolutionary theory (explanations of the mechanisms underlying evolution).
Comment by JAM — July 10, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hi Bradford,
The "confusion" can be resolved by you simply and directly stating your ideas for a mechanistic model.
"An omnipotent creator breathed life into non-life" could be considered a model. Is this one close to yours?
P.S. at the risk of being too repetitive, there are other choices for possible models other than just the two main ones.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 10, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
My point is that the only difference is when the intervention took place (prior to or after the BB), not if intervention took place.
Setting up precise initial conditions (as with Behe's theory and deist propose) is a definite way in which (it is believed) "God directly intervenes in the universe to change what would have otherwise occurred." (By universe, I am taking this in the broadest sense, as in "reality", not necessarily limited to our space-time universe of matter, since I am not a materialist.)
Why should one group be tarred with the creationist brush, but the other "protected" This all stinks of special re-definition of a word for the sake of rhetorical points.
Comment by Atom — July 10, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
JAM:
There is not a researcher out there engaged in OOL who believes that.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
How is that a detailed mechanistic model TP?
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Aagcobb:
Where does he deny this?
Comment by Bilbo — July 10, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
It is a start. Just like…
"A telic universe forcing consistency via quantum effects" is a start.
Yes, details are important. I could probably put together a rather detailed model based on a God hypothesis, but I already have an ID model I am working on.
This is how I think for myself. I work to understand the details. If I can't explan the details to others then I doubt my own understanding.
Beliveing in something that happens to be true isn't knowledge.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 10, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I believe that too TP. There are plenty of ID critics who have no plausible models in mind.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Actually, Creationists conflate ID and Creationism all the time, as was amply demonstrated during Kitzmiller v. Dover. The Creationist members of the school board certainly didn't make any meaningful distinction between the two… read "40 days and 40 nights" by Charles Darwin's great, great grandson, Matthew Chapman.
As for Behe, whatever else he may believe or accept, his idea is that somewhere along the line, God poofed the bacterial flagellum into existence. So he's a Creationist, too.
Comment by takuan — July 10, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
takuan:
ID opponents believe in miracles too. They just call it abiogenesis rather than poof. It amounts to the same thing.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
It's nice to hear IDCs whine now and then about how they aren't creationists. Dembski wrote a teajerker of a commentary on Pennock's conflation of ID and creationism. Pennock was dismissive of that clever but transparent attempt to evade responsibility.
Bradford scientists don't say 'poof"! Behe does! So it is up to Behe and Co., to explain their miracles.
Comment by agam — July 10, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
agam:
I agree, to an extent, that the name calling strategy is a bit immature and not worth all the attention. But to be fair the tag has legal consequences, at least in the USA.
What page did he write that? It matters not what is said as much as what is asserted- in this case that life arises through an unknown cause and unspecified pathway. The assertion and lack of an associated natural cause could be seen as a miraculous claim. In any case it is not one backed by evidence.
Comment by Bradford — July 10, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Don't scientists believe in the Big Bang? What is that, if not a poof?
Comment by WedgeHead — July 10, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
agam:
??? Hi, agam, welcome to Telic Thoughts. Your statement above is odd to me because around here an "IDC" is an ID Critic. I presume you're using the acronym as "ID Creationist," but it's really a little bit late to change the usage here. Even if it flies really well over at II or some other 'New Atheist' site.
Just a little bit of a nit-pick on terminology I hope you won't mind. Perhaps you have something useful to offer the discussions here, and I wouldn't want your posts to get lost in total confusion.
I haven't had the opportunity to read Behe's EoE yet, and I haven't read anything else he's written so I can't comment authoritatively on this. But it seems to me that magical poof-dom abounds on both 'sides' of these debates, it's just a question of whose poofs you like better than the other guy's poofs.
To me, dueling magical poofs are the same thing as dueling metaphysics. Nobody ever solved religion's issues that way, and I've never seen it solve a single scientific issue either. Perhaps you have a POV that would make a difference in that. Do you?
Comment by Joy — July 10, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Meyer is not a YEC. See the Peter Ward/Stephen Meyer debate as evidence of this.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 10, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I asked you to provide an exhaustive list of creationists who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. Here is your list:
This nicely shows you are indeed engaged in the creationist fabrication, where you are painting the target around the arrow. You are unable to point to any prominent creationists who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish other than Behe, the very one whom you seek to label.
Your idiosyncratic, private definition is noted. But if it didn't matter, why were you completely stumped by my request for the list? Certainly if your definition is anything more than your private definition, there should be plenty of creationists out there who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. You don't seem to be understand creationists very well, Aagcobb. Do you believe common ancestry with apes is a trivial point among creationists? If so, do you have any evidence to back up your belief?
You are ignoring the wisdom of Orwell: "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different."
Do you really think that when an American labels another American as a creationist, anyone who hears this has in mind the The Ainu people of HokkaidÅ??
Aagcobb, you are quite good at nit-picking, nay-saying, and labeling. But why not offer something positive and constructive? In the past, you have said that you are a theistic evolutionist. Can you expound some more on this position of yours?
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Hi Agam,
You write:
Yes, this is the dime-a-dozen stereotype among the critics. But we are quite familiar with the various ways that people try to rationalize their reliance on stereotype. You, on the other hand, seem unfamiliar with the various ways I have dissected it. Thus, you might be interested in this. If you have some counter-arguments, let me know. Enjoy.
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 12:08 am
MikeGene to Aagcobb:
Huh. I must have missed that one. If Behe's dismissible as a Creationist even though he thinks humans descended from monkeys who descended from fish, what does that make Aagcobb? Are they trying for "Creationist vs. Creationist" here? And if so, why are they suddenly so desperate?
I'm gonna have to get EoE now, though I've avoided it. It's starting to look like Behe's backed 'em right into a blind corner. Hmmmm… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 11, 2007 @ 12:08 am
July 11th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Aagcobb's position seems to be that a creationist is one who believes that there had to be intervention in the natural history process to get to where we are today. IOW, the position that natural laws alone would not account for what we observe today makes one a creationist, not just belief in a deity. Everything was front loaded at the begining of the universe and events unfolded like a wound up clock. Is that about right Aagcobb?
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2007 @ 12:31 am
July 11th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Hi Bilbo,
you asked where Behe denied humans could have evolved from apes naturally. In a thread below, Behe was quoted as saying:
The grandest Darwinian claim, certainly the most controversial, was that humans evolved from other apes by way of variation and natural selection. I would be very surprised if Behe believed this is true.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 11, 2007 @ 12:31 am
July 11th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Hi Atom,
I believe you are redefining the word, Atom. Other than a few EAs, I don't know of anyone else who has ever called a deist a "creationist".
Hi MikeGene,
I do not, Mike. As I said, I'm not overly familiar with the beliefs of OECs. Since YECs already think OECs are heretics, its possible that some OECs themselves do not see divinely molding humans from apes rather than from dust as heretical.
As I said before, Behe thinks humans are related to apes the same way that YECs think humans are related to dust: they merely provided the raw material which God directly molded into a human. So let me ask you, Mike; what do you call a person who believes that God intervened in the universe to divinely create man, if that person is not a creationist?
Another key point is that Behe's arguments against evolution are simply reworded creationist arguments against evolution. Henry Morris came up with "organized complexity" as an anti-evolutionary argument; Behe merely changed the name to "irreducible complexity", but its the same argument against evolution. Behe's IDism is nothing but creationist anti-evolutionary arguments, so if Behe quacks like a duck, why would I think he's really a swan?
Mike and Bradford have asked what my view as a theistic evolutionist is. My view is that God concieved this universe as a natural one, thus there is no need for him to perform miracles to supplement the natural forces at work in the universe. God is not Bill Gates; he doesn't have to download patches to fix the universe because he is omniscient and omnipotent, thus the universe was complete and as God intended it to be from the moment he conceived it. I don't view this as being exactly the same thing as winding up the universe, sitting back and letting it run, because time is not a meaningful concept when one is talking about God: the universe, from beginning to end, is for him already complete. Being omniscient, God knows the future as completely as he knows the past and the present, very different from our limited perspective.
I would also add that my pov is entirely theological. I do not believe it can be either verified or falsified scientifically. There are no limits on God's power, thus science cannot identify one thing as occurring naturally and another as being a miracle performed by God; everything that occurs is in accordance with the will of God.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 11, 2007 @ 1:10 am
July 11th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Hi Aagcobb,
You answered one question with this:
And another with this:
You seem to be making a guess in one case and then promoting that guess to fact in the next.
Where has Behe said that apes were just raw materials which God divinely shaped into man?
===
Since many scientists can view the origin of the universe and the conditions of the Big Bang as an act of God without falling under the label of 'Creationist' and without running afoul of the NAS proclamation ought not Behe as well?
On one hand one group considers the fine-tuning of the universe to be evident and on the other Behe thinks that the fine-tuning extends to events in the biosphere. But his theory/hypothesis/idea (what have you) does not, and never has, required any interventions subsequent to the Big Bang. He has said this from the beginning.
And if Creationists and Theistic evolutionists are allowed to self-identify so as to exclude one another why don't you allow that of Creationists and IDists? Neither group thinks that ID is Creationism (although there are individuals who can consider themselves both), as evidenced by the distancing of ICR and AiG from ID and vice-versa.
===
Behe:
page 231, EoE
page 232
===
It seems your classification scheme has at least as much to do with the following set of conditions as you have alluded to throughout this thread.
This seems to have as much to do with pledging allegiance and not rocking the boat as it does with any specific act of God. I understand the distinction you are making with regard to miracles and interventions but you are ignoring Behe's statements over the past decade to apply this distinction to him. You also seem awfully close to promoting a dangerous lockstep march which would not be the least bit healthy for the mainstream science you are trying to protect.
===
ps. I like your view of God and the universe.
But if the act of creation was a single one, complete at the moment it began then it is all a matter of design. It is also then the case that whatever condition or form is under examination it exists not as a result of what came before, but as a result of what comes next.
I think of this as a piece of music being played, or a picture being painted (the picture analogy is probably not as good, but it is easier to verbalize…)
The final image can be in the artist's head, and it is then placed upon a canvas. A microscopic observer who has access to only one drop of paint at a time might mistakenly think that wet-white naturally leads to bright blue, which naturally leads to light blue, which then becomes black, and then grey, etc. Having no idea that his square micrometer of canvas was always intended as just one element of pigment in the creation of a pre-determined whole he will see every event as dependent upon the one preceding it, rather than being necessitated by what is to come. In a very real sense then the future determines the past, not by reaching back through time and altering it, but by pre-existing it in the creative mind.
Now, imagine that painting being created in a flash instant by the painter who resides outside of time. What has unfolded bit by bit over time for the observer never was a true succession, but was actually just one instantaneous movement. What role does that leave randomness, chance and law? There would be some chance, as a fleck of black may be a millimeter to the left or right of the fleck of white, but they are both there in proportion to make the predetermined grey. Overall chance is merely an illusion of the observer's limited perspective at that point.
Comment by Pez — July 11, 2007 @ 2:32 am
July 11th, 2007 at 3:05 am
ps.
No, TP, that is not a model.
I don't believe that we are each pigments manipulated by giant cosmic horsehair and just waiting to dry.
Comment by Pez — July 11, 2007 @ 3:05 am
July 11th, 2007 at 7:14 am
To answer Mike's original point (and ignore the debate so far), I think the reason why it's so easy to confuse ID with Creationism, despite being slightly different philosophical views is that they are both vacuous in exactly the same way.
Possibly more vacuous, because Old-earth creationists and Young Earth creationists have are prepared to state the evidence suggests the "designer" is, and even claim to know the overall methods and motive for this act of design.
The most telling aspect of ID is it's proponents are perfectly OK with the claim that an "overwhelming" preponderance of evidence supports their design conjecture, and yet none of it can reveal any clues at all about the designer's identity or methods.
Even the "design filter" which purports to be able to detect intelligent design cannot tell us what kind of intelligence must have done the design.
Of course, there are much better reasons for believing that ID is an offshoot of creationism. For example study of older versions of a significant ID text "Of Pandas and People" started life as a creationist text. Only minimal revisions were required to transform a blatantly Old-Earth creationist textbook into an ID textbook.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 11, 2007 @ 7:14 am
July 11th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Well, the most famous OEC is Hugh Ross, who denies human evolution. But I suppose it is possible that there may be some self-proclaimed OECs who accept human evolution, as there are billions of people and no law of nature is violated when it comes to labeling. But what matters is how the label "˜creationist' is commonly interpreted. Do you think that if you label Behe a creationist, you are communicating to the average person that Behe accepts accepts as trivial the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? This is why the list was essential. If, in another context, I asked you to provide a list of prominent creationists, you would likely provide a list that would include Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Kennedy, etc. In other words, a list of people who do not accept as fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. When I ask you to provide a list of creationists who accept as fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish, the only commonly known name you can think of is Behe himself. Just because you are engaged in the creationist fabrication does not mean you should lack a rationalization for such labeling. It just means you would be painting targets around arrows, which you are clearly doing.
Yet one method means we are historically and physically linked to monkeys and other animals and the other does not. This is not a point of trivia among creationists.
But you left out the relevant information. What do you call a person who believes that God intervened in the universe to divinely create man through the process of evolution? Answer "“ a theistic evolutionist. "Wrong," you might argue, claiming that such intervention violates your definition of TE. In fact, it would violate the definition used by Ken Miller or Francis Collins (I think). But if there can be many kinds of creationism, why in the world think there cannot be many kinds of TE? Why think there are all sorts of creationism, but one and only one kind of TE? After all, I'd bet most people interpret theistic evolution as God-guided evolution.
Thus, it is more accurate to label Behe a theistic evolutionist than a creationist. Which label is more likely to convey to the average person that Behe accepts as fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? TE, of course.
We might expect you to resist this. After demonizing Behe so much, you would fall back on your tribalism and insist Behe is not a TE since you are a TE. But that doesn't matter, as the TE label better fits Behe than the creationist label.
People have made very similar arguments in order to label Ken Miller and Francis Collins as creationists. Look, as my front-loading arguments demonstrate, non-teleologists demand something that conventional evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain. If you try to come up with something like this, it will be compared to a creationist argument and then used to label the person a creationist. That's the game. Basically you are saying that anyone who uses an argument that looks like a reworded creationist argument must be a creationist. Hopefully, you can see this is illogical. After all, do you realize that someone like Lynn Margulis uses arguments that look like reworded creationist arguments?
Yes, this is one kind of theistic evolution and I respect it greatly. But I notice you chose the word "conceived" rather than "created." Are you suggesting the universe was not created? In what way does the universe relate to God?
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2007 @ 8:37 am
July 11th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Hi Salim,
I'm quite sure that critics have their reasons for relying on the stereotype. But I've always been more interested in the implications of the stereotypes rather than the causes. For example, look what it has you doing:
I've never argued that an "overwhelming" preponderance of evidence supports a design conjecture. In fact, I have argued that when it comes to design, we are dealing with conjectures weakly supported by evidence. Yet despite reading and posting to TT for months, you are blinded to this reality. Ergo "“ one implication of relying on stereotype.
Indeed. And creationists would never be happy with leaving the design inference at this state. To them, God as the Designer is a central tenet, if not the whole message of creationism. To leave the identity an open-question as a function of the limits of the design methodology is not something that a creationist would ever be satisfied with.
As we demonstrated around here with a survey of readers, none of the ID proponents think Pandas is significant and most of us have never even seen this "significant" obscure book. Pandas is only significant when it comes to a subset of ID proponents deeply involved in school room politics. It would be an attack on reason to use Pandas as a means to rationalize stereotypes about many people here at TT.
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2007 @ 9:01 am
July 11th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Hi MikeGene,
Mike, it doesn't really matter what lable Behe applies to himself in the end. He still agrees with the creationists that life's diversity cannot be explained scientifically without appealing to divine intervention, and Miller and Collins agree with mainstream scientists that it can; they don't invoke miracles in their scientific publications.
Not really. Lynn Margulis is undeniably a person who believes that life evolves naturally without divine intervention. Michael Behe is undeniably a person who believes life cannot evolve naturally and divine intervention must occur to explain the current diversity of life. I doubt Lynn Margulis would say that creationist claims about why life cannot evolve naturally are correct, as Behe does when he said:
Margulis is quote-mined by creationists; Behe expressly agrees with creationists.
It is a distinction without a difference. Whatever God conceives simply is. Thus the universe, as an existing thing, is like God timeless, though we, trapped in the limitations of four dimensional space-time as we are, perceive the passage of time.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 11, 2007 @ 9:36 am
July 11th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Aagcobb
Was Francis Crick a creationst??
Comment by IDist — July 11, 2007 @ 11:18 am
July 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Right, all that matters is what label Aagbobb applies to Behe.
Notice how Aagcobb dodges Mike's arguments by simply doing nothing more than restating his earlier argument by proclamation. Typical lawyer debate tactic, pretend you've addressed the argument when you really have not done so.
Comment by Jean — July 11, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
MikeGene and Atom have presented the solution to this conundrum. Every theist is a creationist, since they believe God played some role, at some point, in the universe, whether its detectable by science or not. Every theist is also a theistic evolutionist, because even YECs believe humans came from something else (dust). Is everyone happy now? All we have to do at this point is come up with new terms to explain all the shadings of theistic evolutionary creationism.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 11, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Aagcobb:
Hi Aagcobb. First, let me be clear that I respect your right to believe this. I also think God would have the power to create in a manner consistent with your perception. However the way the universe actually functions may or may not live up to our preconceptions. It is in the legal sphere that I see difficulties. Judge Jones essentially took a theological stand. There is simply not enough scientific data to support a case for the viewpoint you have outlined. At the very least there are two points where there are breaks in the continuity of explanations: the origin of the universe itself and the origin of life. If there is an affirmative answer to Dembski's question about the properties of a living organism reliably signaling an intelligent cause, then what is the problem? To make an affirmative answer an affront to science is the ultimate in threatiness.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Ah, what a time to return from a brief hiatus.
Let me try to make explicit the problem that has been said in smatterings the whole way through: The problem with the ID=creationism meme is not that it is ill-fitting in all respects but that "creationism" as a label has a very specific connotation that is practically inescapable unless you constantly qualify what you mean by creationism (at which point its use as a label is pretty much nil). When you call someone a creationist, you invoke an image of someone committed to a young earth, a global flood, the denial of macroevolution, etc. Yes, "creationist" essentially means "a person who believes the universe was created," but its context-specific usage has made the broad construal almost impossible. To steal a sound byte from the New Atheists for an example, most of us are atheists in regards to Zeus, Thor, etc. (and some of us go a few gods further, as the saying goes), but that doesn't mean that one would be justified calling Behe or Miller atheists. Atheism, like creationism, has a very specific meaning, and in order for a label to work appropriately (i.e., to communicate a message efficiently), it must correspond both to the speaker's intent and the listener's understanding. (An aside: It is for similar reasons that I have a problem with agnostics being called atheists as well.)
And while I'm not a big fan of deconstructionism and the hermeneutic of suspicion, which the Orwell quote sort of implies, it is helpful in that it should be a reminder to the cautious reader that terms which have different usages based on who is using them and the context in which they are used, such as creationism, should be taken cum grano salis.
Comment by thechristiancynic — July 11, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Bradford said, "Judge Jones essentially took a theological stand."
Horse hockey! Judge Jones did what any rational, fair-minded, levelheaded judge would have done, given the "evidence" presented. By the end of the trial, it was obvious that the Fundamentalists on the school board made no distinction between ID (whatever that is) and good ol' fashioned Creationism. All they cared about was injecting their Fundamentalist religious beliefs into the school curriculum.
That lemon smell must have been overwhelming.
Comment by takuan — July 11, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
This was the "Intelligent Design" being argued about in Dover…
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Of Pandas and People, page 99
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 11, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
takuan:
You're right about the decision itself. Ruling against the school board was inevitable. There is more to this than evidence presented.
TP wrote:
There was much more of course than this passage from P&P. There was this for example:
There is another form of contrived dualism that says ID=not evolution. This form says that evidence for evolution is evidence against ID. That would come as a surprise to MG, Krauze and others who have advanced FLE. It also deliberately ignores two other forms of ID unrelated to evolution- cosmological ID and the origin of life.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
This ID = Creationist meme is merely invoked for a political purpose. Are all Americans who have recently subscribed to some form of Nationalism due to the Immigration Bill ipso facto Fascists? I would say no but many people would disagree. Furthermore, why does a "˜theistic evolutionist' avoid the creationist label given that "˜theistic' implies a belief that God intervened at some point or at least set out universal natural laws for a "˜designed' goal? (Just so we are clear, the laws that were put in place were "˜designed' for a "˜reason"˜.) Modern science rejects design within natural laws and especially a "˜belief' that is based on "˜theism' which is now taboo.
"˜Id' itself does not ultimately subscribe to any form of "˜theism' as shown here on this forum and by many other proponents. Now, on the flip side; Neo-Darwinism, Naturalism, and Scientism are "˜specific' labels which can imply atheism. I don't believe these labels can't be defended against an atheistic belief but I am curious how they would be defended given the creationist label that is readily thrown out towards "˜id' by the same people.
Comment by Good ID — July 11, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Hi Bradford,
That was the point. The "Intelligent Design" being argued in the Dover courtroom had little, or nothing, to do with what MikeGene and Krause are suggesting (and certainly not the Third Choice).
Judge Jones ruled on the Intelligent Design presented in the courtroom as explained in the Intelligent Design TEXTBOOK, Of Pandas and People.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 11, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
TP:
He had more than this TP. He had the testimony of witnesses. Here's the difficulty with Jones though. If he was aware that the evidence submitted to him was of a very narrow nature then what he could have and should have done was rule against the school board on narrow grounds. As it stands the FLEers are grouped together with those with whom they have little in common insofar as JJ's ruling is concerned. It is evident that JJ wanted to rule in such a way as to maximize the effect of his judgement. But in doing so he conflates views that have little in common and, more importantly, are opposed by standard theories that are vastly weaker than the evidence for evolution.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Quite so, Bradford. He had the testimony of witnesses who showed that the publishers of the first edition of "Of Pandas and People" simply replaced every instance of "Creation Science" with the words, "Intelligent Design," and republished the thing.
Dontcha just love that lemony scent?
Comment by takuan — July 11, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I was unaware that JJ's appeal lies with his lemony scent.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Hi Bradford,
Both sides asked Judge Jones to rule on whether or not ID was science.
The circuit court that provides the authoritative judicial procedures in Pennsylvania had instructed judges to apply the Endorsement test PRIOR to the Lemon test in cases like this.
Judge Jones would have had been an activist judge if he purposely went directly to the intent plank of the Lemon Test.
Like it or not, Judge Jones did what he was supposed to do.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 11, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I don't dispute this TP but I've gone over the wording of JJ's decision and found parts like the one I quoted before that betray either a shallow understanding of the bigger picture or simply a reliance on weak knee jerk arguments.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hi Bradford,
What you quoted was from the very large section titled "Whether ID is Science?". Which was the fourth point in applying the Endorsement Test. It wasn't "knee jerk", but the answer was clearly "no" for the ID presented in the courtroom.
Did you expect Judge Jones to consider things outside of what was presented to look at the "bigger picture" Activist judges do that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 11, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
TP:
Based on the public speeches JJ has given since the decision, I have no reason to believe he thinks a bigger picture exists.
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2007 @ 12:16 am
July 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Aagcobb:
I see. So when you said:
you were really making an inference. I've read EoE almost twice, now, and nowhere have I found Behe denying that humans could have evolved from apes by way of a natural evolutionary process. Nor did he make such a claim in DBB. Nor anywhere else that I know of. In EoE (p.218), he does have a diagram in which he lists the various categories where he thinks the evidence for design is strong; where the evidence for "contingency" (non-design) is strong; and where the evidence is ambiguous. "Orders, Families, and Genera" are where he thinks the evidence is ambiguous. I believe Apes and Humans share one of those (Families is my guess). So, at this point in time, I think it would be more accurate to say that Behe hasn't made up his mind about that question.
Comment by Bilbo — July 12, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
It's always amusing to watch critics Paraspin me. In this case, we have Brian Switek reporting about me as follows:
In the mind of the soon-to-be-graduating student at Rutgers "“ "While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists." – is me complaining that the ICR's John Morris considers ID non-Christian.
Apparently, these days you can graduate with substandard reading comprehension skills.
Comment by MikeGene — July 14, 2007 @ 9:02 pm