The problem is that if you look at Mooney/Nisbet through the lens of their recent publications, all you can see on this issue is sympathy and support for theistic evolutionists… And, I'm sorry, but theistic evolutionists are creationists.

Does anyone know if Mooney/Nisbet have yet demanded an apology from PZ for considering them "creationist sympathisers"

I see PZ's logic and intentions but are his targets so weak that they would conform their own beliefs to fit what PZ finds acceptable?

Isn't that what they essentially do do to an alarming degree. Anybody that buys into something like NOMA is doing exactly that.

BTW, I find theistic evolutionists to be closet IDists anyway but so what? PZ is one of a long line of people throughout history that have tried to do away with believing in a deity. He will fail like all his predecessors.

Oh I agree his enterprise is doomed, but the longer it takes for him to be seen as the anti-religious bigot that he is the more harm he will do.

I believe they want to make peace with science. In practice, according to the current dominant paradigm for the meaning of "science", this means making peace with scientific materialism.

A major theme of Collins book is that there should be no essential conflict between religion and science. He hates the conflict and wants to show that there is no contradiction between being a Christian and being a scientist.

These are commendable desires, but the implementation is misguided. Under the current definition, science is obligated to deny detectable intelligent agency for natural effects regardless of the evidence. Consequently, so are the theistic evolutionists, who become obligated to show their theology is OK with this.

Hooking up the wagon of Christian theology to scientific materialism is a mistake, just as it was a mistake to hook the wagon of Christian theology to Aristotle.

Very insightful comments Eric. There is a pugnacity among the materialists that seems to be lacking in their theistic counterparts.

They do maintain that an intelligent being is causally responsible for the universe and life on earth while denying the possibility that evidence for this could be detectable. Why do you think they hold that position?

I believe they want to make peace with science. In practice, according to the current dominant paradigm for the meaning of "science", this means making peace with scientific materialism.

A major theme of Collins book is that there should be no essential conflict between religion and science. He hates the conflict and wants to show that there is no contradiction between being a Christian and being a scientist.

These are commendable desires, but the implementation is misguided. Under the current definition, science is obligated to deny detectable intelligent agency for natural effects regardless of the evidence. Consequently, so are the theistic evolutionists, who become obligated to show their theology is OK with this.

Hooking up the wagon of Christian theology to scientific materialism is a mistake, just as it was a mistake to hook the wagon of Christian theology to Aristotle.

If you mean that theistic evolutionists might agree that there is an underlying design to nature and are willing to give credit to God in some way that can only be perceived through eyes of faith "” then yes, in that very broad sense they may affirm design.

However, they accept the restriction that "science" means explaining nature by appealing only to natural processes, never to appeals to detectable intelligent agency. So in reality, they can be quite hostile toward the inference to intelligent agency, i.e. ID.

Good point Eric. They do maintain that an intelligent being is causally responsible for the universe and life on earth while denying the possibility that evidence for this could be detectable. Why do you think they hold that position?

Bradford: BTW, I find theistic evolutionists to be closet IDists anyway but so what?

If you mean that theistic evolutionists might agree that there is an underlying design to nature and are willing to give credit to God in some way that can only be perceived through eyes of faith — then yes, in that very broad sense they may affirm design.

However, they accept the restriction that "science" means explaining nature by appealing only to natural processes, never to appeals to detectable intelligent agency. So in reality, they can be quite hostile toward the inference to intelligent agency, i.e. ID.

Example: Francis Collins called his book The Language of God (referring to giving God a kind of credit for the genetic code). However, in that book he consistently resists and warns against making biological inferences to intelligent agency. While not guaranteeing that science will find natural process explanations for life, he counsels against ID inferences as though they were merely arguments from ignorance.

Having formed a theology that is accomodated to the idea that science will explain nature through appeals to natural processes only, an ID inference is actually disproving their theology. Behe is no longer in their camp because the scientific evidence has shown him otherwise. He had no theological motivation to change.

This can't be a bad thing in the long run. Once everybody understands that PZ and others consider them "creationists" regardless of how far they are willing to along with them, if they fail to be essentially some sort of atheist or deist, the sooner they will be marginalised into irrelevance.

I see PZ's logic and intentions but are his targets so weak that they would conform their own beliefs to fit what PZ finds acceptable? BTW, I find theistic evolutionists to be closet IDists anyway but so what? PZ is one of a long line of people throughout history that have tried to do away with believing in a deity. He will fail like all his predecessors.

This can't be a bad thing in the long run. Once everybody understands that PZ and others consider them "creationists" regardless of how far they are willing to along with them, if they fail to be essentially some sort of atheist or deist, the sooner they will be marginalised into irrelevance.

Is it really such a radical claim that theistic evolutionists are creationists ?

It seems pretty consistent to me based on the way PZ and others talk.

Why would anyone base a conclusion as to consistency or accuracy based on PZ?

It seems pretty consistent to me based on the way PZ and others talk.