They Love to Smear Us
by MikeGeneDr. James F. McGrath has a blog where he effectively accuses us of dishonesty. He writes:
The Intelligent Design movement accuses biologists of claiming to know more, and with a greater degree of certainty, than they do. I would like to suggest that the proponents of ID are claiming to know less than they think they do.
Notice that McGrath has failed to define the "Intelligent Design movement." In fact, he immediately leaps from the "movement' to "the proponents of ID" as if they are all one and the same thing. One wonders whether McGrath can make a distinction between a socio-political movement and individuals who explore the concept of ID. Does he believe that anyone who explores the concept MUST be a card-carrying member of The Movement?
McGrath writes:
No true scientist, whether driven by intellectual curiosity or the desire to be famous, would claim to have found evidence that there was intervention by some powerful intelligence in our world, and then throw up their hands and say "but we have no way of knowing whether it was a deity, an alien, or what." That isn't an instance of humility, but of strategy, and we all know why the strategy is being used: to wedge ID into science classrooms by disconnecting it from religion.
Ah, the "no true scientist" argument (it reminds me of the "no true Christian" and "no true Atheist" arguments). Unfortunately for McGrath, his argument is premised on an historical anachronism. We happen to live in the post-wedge world, where any such "strategy" is no longer relevant or useful. That is, with or without such a "strategy," a federal judge has decided that ID is religion and his legal opinion carries far more weight than any movement's "strategy." The Dover decision has rendered McGrath's 2007 argument as nothing more than vacuous rhetoric.
Since McGrath is painting with a broad brush, I interpret him to be accusing me of dishonesty. So let me set the record straight.
1. I have been publicly opposed to teaching ID in the science classrooms long before the Dover decision was made. In fact, I was publicly criticized for this position.
2. I have long gone on record as acknowledging that ID does not even qualify as "˜science.'
3. My unwillingness to "identify the designer" is NOT a strategy, but is indeed humility and a recognition that the methods behind ID cannot deliver such an answer. Instead of peddling stereotypes, I suggest McGrath educate himself with some of the freely available information on the internet that can be found here and here.
McGrath then goes on to complain as follows:
Yet I'll be criticized, in completely hypocritical fashion, by proponents of ID if I mention that evolution avoids some of these unpleasant implications and is theologically preferable.
No, Dr. McGrath, I will/would not criticize you for this point. As an ID evolutionist, I would agree with you. Did that ever occur to you?
Of course, some readers may think I am being hyper-sensitive and argue that McGrath is not talking about me (us). The problem is that McGrath paints with a broad brush. He refers to "the proponents of ID" and never qualifies this claim (for example, as "some proponents of ID," "many proponents of ID"). Intead, he seamlessly weaves the Movement with Creationism with the ID proponents. Most importantly, McGrath knows of the existence of Telic Thoughts and has even posted here before (for example). Thus, he consciously chose to paint with this broad brush after he knew of our existence.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and to reply. I can't help but notice that your post is entitled "They love to smear us". Who, may I ask, is "they" in this context? Isn't that a broad brush you are using yourself? The critics of Intelligent Design as a movement, as well as specific versions of it, include Christian theologians, atheists, biologists who may overlap with one or the other of the previous categories or with neither. Can we all be lumped together as a single "they" in this way?
If we never speak about a movement in general, or a culture in general, or a nation in general, will we ever be able to speak about them at all? There are always exceptions.
As you know, I think that specificity and focus are extremely important. I would therefore hate to think that, after criticizing Dawkins for ignoring important differences of viewpoints among Christians, I have engaged in unhelpful generalizations myself.
If you don't think that ID is science, then I think it is safe to say that you are not typical of the "movement", and my criticism was not aimed at you in that case. My criticism was aimed at those who claim they are doing science when they are in fact doing publicity for an ideology. Sometimes innocent victims get caught in the crossfire.
I think the offense you took at my post may have prevented you from seeing where I was going. I didn't say "no true scientist" would explore ID. I'm currently reading Philip Kitcher's book Living With Darwin that has some important things to say about that. What I said is that no true scientist would say "we have found evidence of X" and then say "let's stop now and not explore what the evidence suggests about the nature of X". I don't see why that particular statement should have been so controversial.
I look forward to further conversation on this topic!
Comment by ReligionProf — October 14, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Who exactly has said that?
Names please.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 14, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Hello, Dr. McGrath. In your blog's post you said…
May I ask you about your opinion of the Evolution *AS* Religion 'Movement'? Is this the type of thing that you would approve of in a purely theological sense? Thanks.
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Mike,
If you're not part of whatever, then why not just change the name to something other than ID?
Comment by BoZ3MaN — October 14, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
ReligionProf:
There is a movement but it has nothing to do with ID. The so called ID movement threatens noone and has not instituted a single national policy. OTOH, there is an effective anti-ID movement that distorts and smears. It seeks to obfuscate rather than clarify and conflate positions grounded in scientific data with imagined threats to society.
Comment by Bradford — October 14, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
BoZ3MaN, if we called it TD – Telic Design – would it be science all of a sudden in your view, not subject to denunciation as ideological impurity and blasphemy against the NDS?
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Mike, you're so often writing about "the critics", while trying to smear them. This post of yours is just hilarious. Be reasonable.
Comment by Raevmo — October 14, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Boz3MaN asks Mike:
Boz3MaN,
Then what would Mike do with all the time he currently spends complaining about being lumped in with the ID movement?
Joy wrote:
Mike already admits it's not science. Changing the name won't fix that problem.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
"Changing the name won't fix that problem."
Then there's no reason to change the title of that toward which we lend our thoughts.
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Hi religionprof,
Great. A good place to start would be to actually read my posting. You write:
Yet I addressed this very point:
Is there a reason you insist on speaking of "the ID proponents" instead of "many ID proponents?"
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Hi BozZ3Man,
So I should tip-toe around stereotypes for fear of triggering a conditioned response? How will people ever learn to think critically if we enable the manner in which the media have shaped their thinking? By not changing terminology, I am helping others to think for themselves rather than rely on group think and media slogans. What's more, I have answered this all before.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Actually if this was to happen Nick Matzke would immediately set to work on an article documenting all the connections between Telic Design and ID and explaining that the change was really just a response to Dover and a secret attempt to sneak God into the public schools.
Next the mainstream science press would label us as telic design creationists and would demand that the words telic and design never appear together in a article for fear of giving ammunition to the fundys.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 14, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I wrote:
Joy responded:
You think that's ID's only problem?
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Well stated, fifth. I think many of us clearly see the trap:
"Mike Gene used to use the term ID, but conveniently enough [wink, wink], after the Dover decision, he dropped that term and now uses Telic Design."
As Wikipedia preaches, "Moreover, wedge advocates are now disavowing their own terminology because the term "intelligent design" has become a liability for them since the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
Since many of us are not Wedge advocates, we have no need to disavow any terminology, now do we?
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Mike, I will certainly try to be more consistent in talking about "some" and in other ways not generalize too broadly.
Joy, could you let me know more about what you had in mind when referring to "evolution AS religion" I'm not sure whether you mean something like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's view of things, or the atheists who treat science as an alternative to religion, or something else.
Comment by ReligionProf — October 14, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Hi ReligionProf,
Fantastic! That's all I was asking for. You could always make it clear you are speaking of "most ID proponents" or the "lead voices in a movement." This allows you to make the same point while responsibly acknowledging the existence of exceptions. I myself used to speak of "the critics," but now strive to qualify such claims.
And sorry if I seemed a little harsh, as I was a little grumpy this morning.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
ReligionProf:
I linked the thread. That's those words in blue. If you click on them, it'll take you to the thread where the "Great Story" of evangelical evolution is. It's on this blog, so there's no scary attachments or spyware to worry about.
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
My apologies, Dr. McGrath. That link was wrong. This link is the correct one.
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 7:47 am
I haven't read the book, so I cannot comment in detail. What I can say from my own perspective is that I am in favor of Christians incorporating what we currently know about science into their worldview. Arthur Peacocke is an example of the sort of person attempting to do this.
I don't particularly have a strong opinion about people starting from evolution and trying to come up with religious beliefs on that basis. It is a form of natural theology, and that certainly isn't something I'm opposed to. But since those who are reflecting theologically on nature usually are already influenced (whether negatively or positively) by religious and philosophical traditions, I suspect that most who look to nature for religious beliefs will "find" there exactly what they were looking for.
Comment by ReligionProf — October 15, 2007 @ 7:47 am
October 15th, 2007 at 11:08 am
ReligionProf:
True. Those who objectively assess properties of a cell and the chemical properties of cellular biochemicals like proteins, nucleic acids and real molecular constituents of cellular membranes, will logically conclude that a religion that is based on the presumption that natural laws explain life's origin, indicates that the seeker was looking for something to confirm his preconceptions.
Comment by Bradford — October 15, 2007 @ 11:08 am
October 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Hi, Joy,
A while back you posted the link to an article about particle accelerator generators, which mentioned that there was a remote chance of a chain-reaction developing as a result, which could theoretically destroy the earth and even the universe. If I remember right, that article was not a spoof. I had saved the link to it, but apparently it didn't survive my switch to a new computer. Could you provide the link to that story again?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — October 15, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
ReligionProf:
It's easy enough to find The Great Story traveling medicine show and tent revival meeting. Dowd's new book is just the next step in the six-year long effort.
I notice the qualifier "currently." I suspect that's my primary concern with the Dowd/Barlow ministry (mostly on Barlow's end, as she writes the prayers, rituals and liturgies). She doesn't seem to grasp the provisional nature of what is "currently" known. Having seen in my lifetime several rather dramatic revolutions in science – on the theoretical and evidential levels, in several fields – I think it's a little bit dumb to try and frame a religion around designed-to-be provisional theories and hypotheses.
In fact, I have already discovered one such mistake in the matter of what caused the extinction of North America's megafauna [ed] about 10,000 years ago. Basically, she's teaching falsified hypotheses as Absolute Truth. This doesn't seem to me to be such a good idea.
Yet oddly enough, you've devoted yourself, your work, and your blog to battling against the idea that people might start from religion (or a spiritual worldview) and try to come up with an interpretation of scientific data – or lack thereof – related to the existence and evolution of life.
Why is that?
Comment by Joy — October 15, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hi, Anaxagoras. I don't recall the original link I gave. Here is an article from MSNBC that mentions the controversy. A search on keywords Brookhaven, RHIC, or strangelet should return some archived stories released at the time. Most outlets covered it.
Comment by Joy — October 15, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Hi, Joy,
Yep, that did it. A search on those three keywords brings up scores of articles. Thanks.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — October 15, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I thought I was pretty clear. As a Christian, I am committed to embracing the best information the sciences have to offer. Christianity has always expressed itself in the language of the culture and science of its time. Genesis does it, Paul does it, and as a theologian I am persuaded that this gives us a Scriptural model to follow. What troubles me is that many people who have never studied the Bible and its historical context in any depth are focused on repeating the words of the Bible without seeming to understand what the Biblical authors were doing when they wrote those words.
I am certain that science will progress, as it has up until now, and that future discoveries will show how limited our current perspective was. But there is no way that we can be perspective-free, and so the best we can do is to seek to express the heart of our faith in the medium of contemporary language and imagery, hopefully without wedding it to these things in such a way that later generations have to fight over whether they can do the same in their time.
Comment by ReligionProf — October 16, 2007 @ 8:42 am
October 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
ReligionProf:
Following the progress in fields of interest is an enjoyable pastime for sure. It keeps one sharp and exercises cognitive and critical faculties that are kind of like bodies in that they need to be kept fit in order to last a long time. And of course you can approach it however you believe it is best appreciated.
I'm not a religion professor. I have been a scientist. I've known a lot of scientists, hung out with scientists. It is that experience that informs my caution about "the best information" science has to offer at any given moment. It shouldn't necessarily be embraced unless one makes that embrace as provisional as the science.
Also in my experience, people tend to forget – if they ever knew – that it's provisional. Think of their embrace as Unconditional Love. Human nature, I suppose. I think students should be taught about the philosophy and methodology more than just forced to memorize and regurgitate data and theory.
You'll have this. There's a range of cognitive ability in humans, thus a range of skills associated. Christianity offers a range of congregations, toward which like-minded people tend to gravitate. Thus you'll get fringes on both 'sides' of a median with interpretations and understandings that seem completely oppositional. Again, human nature and human abilities.
Literalists are IMO a rather misguided bunch, but they're free to believe as they choose. Even if I think it's silly. Most of them live fine productive lives anyway, just like most other people.
Being contemporary [i.e., 'hip'] can work for as long as the fashions are contemporary. Then they're passe, and some other fashion comes along. I agree we cannot be perspective-free. That's why I think it's important that we be tolerant of perspectives so long as they aren't directly harmful.
Generations have been fighting about their fashions ever since generations were invented (er… forever). "Kids these days! What will happen to the Republic?" was a common complaint in ancient Greece, too. For many, their faith represents an absolute. Something rock-steady to hold on to while buffeted by the winds of fate.
I don't have to agree with any of them about what's absolute. I just have to appreciate the diversity. Mind control is not something humans have ever been very good at, so the perennial battles over that very thing can be quite entertaining. In my opinion (humble or not), it's a mistake to 'embrace' provisional science *as* data to shape one's baseline faith.
Unless one wishes to embrace scientism, that is. While that's certainly a right just like rights others have to believe, it's not Christianity. I hope you don't teach about the Christian religion in terms of what YOU think it should be, but in terms of what it was and *is* for the people who embrace it.
Thanks for your response.
Comment by Joy — October 16, 2007 @ 10:04 am
October 16th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Thank you for your thoughtful reply Joy! I certainly agree with your cautionary remarks about trying to be 'hip'. (Indeed, I suspect that there is a generation appearing that would take our use of that word to be evidence that we aren't "hip"
any longer!). And I think that there is a danger in allying oneself with a philosophy based on science – e.g. the idea that, if Newtonian physics is correct, then everything is determined, or if relativity in the Einsteinian sense is true then relativism must be too. But when it comes to the basic conclusions of the sciences regarding the data, I think we have to do our best with what they offer us. The alternative is to put ourselves in the situation St. Augustine warned against of criticizing the well-informed based on our understanding of the Bible.
In essence, I am concerned that if Christians (unnecessarily, in my view and the view of many other Christians I respect) line themselves up in opposition to the theory of evolution or some other scientific theory, the result will be more than not simply a loss of 'hipness'. It will, potentially, be the equation of Christianity with ignorance, lack of education, and opposition to discovery and progress. What happened in the case of Galileo was simply unfortunate, since all the data necessary to change the paradigm and prove his case had not yet been amassed. To repeat that unfortunate historical incident in our time and unnecessarily seems to me to be far worse, since in our time we have the benefit of historical precedent to guide us.
Thank you again for your comment and for the opportunity to engage in this stimulating conversation!
Comment by ReligionProf — October 16, 2007 @ 11:54 am
October 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
ReligionProf:
Various sects will take evidences 'current' in the life of its generation to inform its beliefs. Most more orthodox forms of Christianity carefully consider their position on current sociopolitical and ethical issues, and formulate policy by petition and GA vote. That's actually a good way of doing things.
Ah, but there is that full range I mentioned. There's always going to be congregations that align with authoritarians and draw those with authoritarian tendencies, and those generally *are* ignorant of worldly things. They are – and have always been – a minority, yet still free to be ignorant. Relatively speaking. As for individual Christians, most don't think too deeply about such things. They belong for their own practical life-reasons, many of those having not much to do with particular sectarian dogmas apart from the basics – belief in God, His Plan and Purpose, His guidance of our lives and our collective history.
Unless you're Amish (insert sect of note here), you live in the modern world just like the rest of us – you'll never meet any of them in your classroom. Calling such people "stupid" or "ignorant" isn't likely to upset them. They don't care what we think. What good is it?
Hard core Creationists haven't stopped science from doing science, and are highly unlikely ever to accomplish such a thing in our scientifically-fixated modern world. I think people take them way too seriously, and am myself very suspicious of those who pretend they're some great threat to civilization. There's no reason they can't believe what they believe. Science is chugging along just fine.
I do hope you're beginning to understand that ID isn't Creationism in this vein. Some are interested because their faith informs them there is design and purpose mediated by the Mind of God. I honestly see no problem with that (since when do motivations for belief determine the validity of beliefs?). Other ID supporters are not religiously motivated or even affiliated, they just don't buy the current NDS-derived metaphysic that forbids design in life or purpose in evolution for ideological reasons.
A good many intelligent, highly educated people – including scientists – don't believe the NDS is particularly explanatory. Its weaknesses are such that important, potentially valuable avenues of approach to phenomena are being shut off for all the wrong reasons. Coming from science, I think that represents a corruption that is more damaging to science – and to modern science-dependent civilization's progress – than any denials coming from obscure (or loud) religious corners.
IOW, my opinion from watching these debates for a number of years is that efforts by scientists to turn provisional theory into metaphysics/religion is a lot more dangerous to science than any efforts by the religious to hold to their fundamentals of pre-existing faith. We have a constitution that regularly prevents Creationists from forcing their metaphysics onto public science education. We've also lots and lots of people vigilantly guarding against such attempts. But this very same constitution should prevent a metaphysical scientism from being taught as public science education. If evolution makes itself into that 'ism', it'll be as illegal as Creationism is. That's fair.
Christians don't have to be prevented from believing what they choose to believe, by anyone. Scientists and other religionists do not have that authority over their choices. And, finally, taking issue with provisional scientific theories is normally encouraged in science – everywhere but biology. Science is designed to be progressive, not to be absolute. Thus to my mind it's wannabe mind-tyrants in science who are the real problem. Religion's just being what it is and always was.
Religion hasn't changed. Science has.
I thank you as well, Dr. McGrath. It's been nice conversing with you. §;o)
Comment by Joy — October 16, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Hi Joy,
Excellent reply.
In my observer's opinion I think you might want to consider making that into a post.
Maybe add in a little something about the metaphysical "ism" behind the word "random" in random mutation/variation.
ps.
Your point about religion just doing what it always does is good.
The religious are just people and they can't help but be informed by the ideas about the way the world appears to be.
Unfortunately, that means that accepting scientific positions and trying to accommodate them can be as harmful as rejecting them. The infamous and overused and under-understood Galileo affair is a great case in point. His "new" ideas were rejected by those with "old" ideas about the universe. Those rejecting him were doing so because they accepted the heliocentric science and had accommodated it.
St. Thomas was a great thinker and theologian but made questionable doctrinal judgments based upon his scientific acceptance of the Aristotelean science which all scientists believed.
Kant thought arguments for God were irreparably defective because of his acceptance of the mathematics of his day and his inability to see into the future and understand todays' mathematics.
Religionprof could be the next in this list who, with Ken Miller, wants a theology based upon the "consensus" view of biology.
Comment by Pez — October 16, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Pez wrote:
This material may be of interest.
Comment by stunney — October 16, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What we have in all forms of human exploration is like the making of sausage. In the end it may taste good but don't watch it being made. Progressive thinkers in every age must somehow embrace the new that is coming out and try to incorporate it into some sort of system or worldview. If they don't, no progress will be made. This entails an element of risk. Can't be helped. Since religion is one form of human exporation, it too must engage in risk or become anachronistic. To do this it must make judgement calls on what to embrace from science, philosophy, and culture. I see nothing wrong with this and instead think it is inevitable for religious sentiment to be vibrant and existential. "You pays your nickel and takes your chances." If you turn out being wrong, so be it. Someone else may get it right or at least better. In my view, religious thinkers should not worry too much that they incorporate provisional knowledge in their hypotheses as long as it is done with rigor and care. At the very least it stimulates thinking and growth.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 16, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Stunney said,
Yes, very much so.
To me, at least.
Thanks (again)
Comment by Pez — October 16, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Thanks, Pez. I'm glad McGrath came here to discuss Mike's post. I hope he's beginning to understand that he's been doing legwork for questionable operatives per equation of ID with Creationism.
A professor of religion isn't a sectarian minister or tent revivalist – he's an academic, dealing with the broad range of religious mythologies, texts and congregational manifestations as a subject of academic study. So of course we can't expect them to be promulgating any particular belief system over any other, at least not overtly if they're honestly good at what they do.
And *as* academics in an academic setting, it's no surprise that such professors may be subject to more constant influence from anti-religious forces in the same setting than your average theologian at a seminary or preacher in a church. Even if all of 'em try to keep up with the various challenges to the faith. McGrath's blog is academic, it's aimed at his students and colleagues. All that I could hope to do is provide a little feedback on how shallow and unfair his convenient stereotypes are… especially for an academic audience.
And for all that I think he has wrong in the analysis and politics of this particular issue, I have perused his blog and find some of his material to be excellent. It tends to betray a respect for scripture that is missing from too many professors of religion these days. I personally have found the material breathtaking in its sheer breadth of wisdom, even if not always specific enough in the advice department to make things easy. The brilliance of the many authors throughout so many historically contingent eras is evident, as is the underlying thread of total consistency despite apparent anguished existential contradictions.
For some cool analysis on this, I highly recommend Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews. It's highly accessible to the regular reader.
Of course, this is from someone whose "favorite book" of the Bible is Job [if interested, do check Carl Jung's Answer to Job for amazing analysis]. That's weird enough to raise some eyebrows, no doubt!
Comment by Joy — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Thank you, Joy, for both the compliments and the polite critical feedback. I appreciate both, and very much appreciate and admire the way you have articulated your own approach and outlook in your most recent post.
One thing I will say is that I will try to be more cautious about the ways in which I speak about Intelligent Design. It seems to me that there are several rather distinct outlooks, all using the same phrase. Some who use the phrase are indeed simply young-earth creationists who lack a sense of nuance or who have other motives for wishing to adopt this terminology. Most of the proponents of Intelligent Design I've encountered have been in the midground, and I was surprised to see how much even Michael Behe and William Dembski seem to differ in their outlook. Most recently, however, I've been in touch with several individuals who use the language of ID to refer to the fact (which many in the mainstream of evolutionary biology have themselves concluded) that there is much more to evolution than previous generations of biologists have tended to assume. The role of physics in constraining possibilities for flight, and other factors that lead to an evolutionary 'landscape' that might suggest that, contrary to Gould's famous statement, if the clock were rewound and the tape played again, we might well see a lot of repetition.
I'm not sure whether you see the 'front-loading' of evolution in the stage of biology or on the level of physics and the basic constants and characteristics of the universe. In the case of the latter, I've suggested that, rightly or wrongly, speaking about God and design is far less controversial among scientists because it is much clearer in cosmology and physics that science reaches its limits and not merely runs out of answers, but the ability to answer using the tools it normally works with.
Anyway, I won't make this reply any longer than it already is. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss and for giving me a lot to think about!
Comment by ReligionProf — October 16, 2007 @ 10:37 pm