PZ Myers Bashes Theistic Evolutionists and Explains Why They are Acceptable to Scientists
by MikeGeneBiologist PZ Myers accuses the theistic evolutionists of being creationists:
Oh, come on now. I know Mooney isn't a creationist — I read the book. 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. They're just creationists who accept evidence and readily back off from specific claims about their creator god, but they still place faith in unwarranted assumptions about the existence and interventions of a supernatural being, they just tuck it into the gaps in our knowledge. What makes theistic evolution somewhat acceptable to scientists is that its proponents are so willing to run away from their faith when challenged.
BTW, if you'll notice, the New Atheists are gradually re-defining things such that that C-word gets applied to all theists. Remember that we have seen the real reason for the desire to use the C-word.
April 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
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.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 29, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Why would anyone base a conclusion as to consistency or accuracy based on PZ?
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Given what PZ and others mean when they say "darwinist" or "evolutionist" they are refering explictly to a process that is entirely without guidance, direction or purpose. If you fail to subscribe to this then you are in "the other camp". I'd say we should encourage this sort of behavior as much as possible all things considered because all PZ and others will do is alienate those that are willing to go along with them currently.
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.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 29, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
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.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
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.
Comment by eric — April 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
eric:
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?
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
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.
Comment by eric — April 29, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Very insightful comments Eric. There is a pugnacity among the materialists that seems to be lacking in their theistic counterparts.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Isn't that what they essentially do do to an alarming degree. Anybody that buys into something like NOMA is doing exactly that.
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.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 29, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Does anyone know if Mooney/Nisbet have yet demanded an apology from PZ for considering them "creationist sympathisers"
Comment by William Brookfield — May 2, 2007 @ 5:43 pm