What Does It Mean To Be An Anti-Evolutionist?
by bipodWesley Elsberry, anti-evolutionist-labeler extraordinaire, has mastered the art of labeling. But as he notes elsewhere, labels don't amount to anything if they don't have the content to match. (Well, they do amount to something: rhetorical magic in the tribal game - but Wesley doesn't play that game, does he;-).
So lately, I've been wondering what it means to be an anti-evolutionist since apparently, Mike, Krauze, me and the other members of telic-thoughts have been labeled such. Unfortunately, understanding the content of this label proves to be more difficult than you might imagine. After all, an anti-evolutionist can believe the following propositions and still be an anti-evolutionist:
1. All living organisms are related by common descent
2. All complex organisms have evolved from simpler organisms
3. Natural selection, random mutation and various other evolutionary mechanisms have played essential roles in the evolution of organisms
I think I am correct in saying that at least Mike, Krauze and I agree with those three propositions or at least think that they are more plausible than not (correct me if I'm wrong, guys).
Now the reader of our blog should ask herself how people who believe propositions 1-3 could be coherently labled "anti-evolutionists." Well, the whole issue turns on the fact that we throw another proposition into the mix (this is the one that makes us anti-evolutionists):
4. It is reasonable to investigate the existince and implications of intelligent causation in biotic history, probably at the origin of life but also manifested in various evolutionary processes and biological facts (see Conway Morris here)
So there you are. We're antievolutionists not because we deny the reality of evolution, but because we posit the presence of intelligent causation as relevant to biotic history. But in that case, the label misses the mark: its words imply that we somehow deny or stand in opposition to evolution. Since that's false about us, the label is either empty or, at best, misleading.
*Actually, my bet is that we get the anti-evolution label because of paranoia resulting from our bad associations and our refusal to fight the good fight for the pro-science tribe. But, if you're like Wesley Elsberry, and you're concerned with the content of labels rather than the labels themselves, then you should focus on the four propositions above and consider whether the anti-evolution label has any content.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:26 am
Evolutionism = Philosophical Naturalism.
No, that's not accurate, but in the minds of many, many observers (on both sides of the issue), that's the way it is. I used to equate the two rather carelessly myself, on my Thinking Christian blog, until a persistent and thoughtful theistic evolutionist disabused me of the practice.
The perception is strong and pervasive, however, and to the extent that it is considered true, then Telic Thoughts is going to be considered anti-evolutionist. And there's not much any of us will be able to do about it, except to keep trying to put the accurate information out there.
Comment by TomG — January 31, 2006 @ 11:26 am
January 31st, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Comment by Exile From Groggs — January 31, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Bipod, I think it is clear why you are an anti-evolutionist, and are properly labeled as such:
1- You are constantly letting the cat out of the bag. Sure, there may be questions about evolution (in the broad sense), including very interesting questions about the mechanisms behind evolution, but it is not helpful to bring these up in a public setting. Let's let these things get worked out in the scientific journals, rather than raising general awareness of the issues.
2- You lack faith. "Evolution occurred" should be all that you need to know. Asking questions about the details will only raise doubts and weaken your faith. Worse, getting others to think about the details cannot possibly lead to anything good.
3- You are not a team player. Look, everyone knows that Charles got it only half right, at best. But acknowledging that fact and looking for additional or complementary mechanisms plays right into the hands of the rabid theocrats.
4- You are destructive. Even if you have questions about certain aspects of evolution or feel that it is appropriate to explore other alternatives, you know, or should know, that questioning evolution will lead to the end of science and the destruction of our civilzation as we know it. Preserving our society is more important than scaling your personal intellectual mountains. You should keep your mouth shut in the service of the greater good.
5- And finally, I think you really hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph: you associate with bad, bad people.
Comment by Eric Anderson — January 31, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 1:44 am
The creationist label is popular among the poltical activists because it is the classic use of propaganda. Perhaps I will blog about this.
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2006 @ 1:44 am
February 1st, 2006 at 7:49 am
I am a Creationist, and and Anti-Evolutionist, and proud of both labels. Of course, my presence here proves that everyone positively associated with "Telic Thoughts" is also a Creationist and Anti-Evolutionist. No need to thank me.
Comment by Douglas — February 1, 2006 @ 7:49 am
February 1st, 2006 at 7:50 am
"…and an…"
Comment by Douglas — February 1, 2006 @ 7:50 am
February 1st, 2006 at 11:37 am
In a similar fashion, the term Darwinist (or secular humanist or variations thereof) is popular among the poltical activists because it is the classic use of propaganda.
Comment by derwood — February 1, 2006 @ 11:37 am
February 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
"Darwinist" is also very popular among Darwinists like Margules, Ruse, Dawkins, etc.
Comment by Pez — February 1, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
"Creationist" is also very popular among creationists like Cordova, Sarfati, etc.
Comment by derwood — February 1, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Hi Derwood,
"In a similar fashion, the term Darwinist (or secular humanist or variations thereof) is popular among the poltical activists because it is the classic use of propaganda."
Indeed. Which is also why I reserve the label "Darwinist" for those who have already applied it to themselves (like Ruse and Dawkins), just as I reserve the label "creationist" for those who have already applied it to themselves (like Cordova and Safarti).
But does this mean that ID critics using the label "anti-evolutionist" without distinction are no better than creationists using the label "Darwinist" without distinction?
Comment by Krauze — February 1, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Without pretending to be a mind-reader, I think the reason that Elsberry calls TT 'anti-evolutionist' is that everywhere else - no, not just in the Disco Inst., but everywhere else, the proposition that
has been used as a vector for injecting creationism - of the bad, old-fashioned Young Earth variety - into the public school curricula.
Another reason is that nowhere - litterally nowhere - in the public domain is there any trace whatsoever of an investigation into "the existence and implications of intelligent causation in biotic history." If there's some actual research, please do not hesitate to point me to it, but so far all I've seen is PR and hoaxes.
You may be an exception from the general trend of appaling dishonesty in the Intelligent Design Creationist movement, but if so, you're the exeption rather than the rule, and it's not hard to see why an experienced anti-creationist like Elsberry might lump you in with the rest of the crowd you're standing with. After all, a single datum doesn't invalidate a model.
BTW, what's this gripe you have about Elsberry? He seems like a nice guy to me. He sure is a lot more polite in his critiques than I usually am (or at least more polite than I were until I started reading his stuff).
Comment by JS — February 1, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
No gripe with Elsberry, just some of his principles for reasoning. He's certainly not as bombastic as many of the others in the PT crowd, as far as I know (i.e. I rarely hear of Elsberry going over the deep end armed with his steel toed boots).
Example: Elsberry has said something to the effect of "you can tell a lot more about what a person believes by looking at how she spends her time than by listening to what she says." Now, this principle certainly gets at some truth, but it can also be abused to the point of paranoia. I think Elsberry's use of principles like this in his reasoning are largely a result of his long involvement in anti-creationist activities. You can't blame him for it. We're products of our environment. But I also can't admire the sloppy thinking that emerges from a far too broad application of such principles.
So, as far as I know, Elsberry is a fine chap. He's just been trained by his involvement in a primarily debunking-style social group to gravitate his thought in a particular direction that I find unattractive (and which yields far too many false positives!)
Added: A related post from Krauze on another of Elsberry's principles - Wesley's Wedge
Comment by bipod — February 1, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pm
From the link above, Elsberry has essentially told us what he thinks about TelicThoughts from his Christian vantage point.
In other words, Elsberry has here put some meat to the conceptual bones. When he calls us anti-evolutionists, he's really implying that 1) we lie, 2) we have mendacity and 3) we are characterized by our innuendo.
Elsberry has not only painted a broad stroke here, but he has also been quite liberal in his application of the concept (antievolution) which, has at its core (is comprised of) evil characteristics.
He's utterly missed the boat. And not only that, but he's gravenly mistaken to imply such things about me and my friends (here I'm being very tribal;-).
It's not an innocuous false positive. Let's put it that way.
Comment by bipod — February 1, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Though this thread appears to be mainly about labels, it seems to me this topic gets at how TT's can be relatively important in helping people's understanding of issues surrounding evolution, creation and intelligent design theories.
It would be quite helpful if TT's members could distinguish just which aspects of evolution they might be willing to disagree with or to reconsider in a different light. There are many more features of evolutionary theories than the 4 propositions represented, which in fact all deal with physical things (to speak rather crudely). For example, what about non-physical topics related to evolution?
The idea of 'intelligent causation' seems to over-lap with non-physical things. In fact, many people think it is entirely 'unreasonable' to posit that an 'intelligence' (choose a big I if you believe) caused biotic things to exist. That is not my view, but you or someone else will have to 'do the science' if that belief is to 'become' scientifically rigorous. Evolutionary theories sometimes include material, physical and ideological components and a person can be an anti-evolutionist in one dimension but not in another.
I asked MG awhile back and he came across as an almost universal ideological evolutionist if not as a universal physical evolutionist. Surely he and others here are not anti-evolutionist since taking 'ID evolutionist' as a more or less descriptive self-label.
For example, one may accept biological evolution, the evolution of plants and animals, of valleys and mountains, the evolution of genes and/or memes (whatever those latter things may be), but not accept technological evolution, the evolution of choices, love or the evolution of building a house.
Salvador Cordova, for example, is rather funny it seems in accepting technological evolution and linguistic evolution, but not certain aspects of biological or chemical evolution, specifically anything 'Darwinian' or 'neo-Darwinian' that implies 'chance' or 'random-ness' or that lacks 'purpose.' It seems this is one thing he shares in common with TT's that anything non-teleological about evolution is considered contrary to what he thinks theories of ID should promote.
Maybe the core folks at TT's could help creationists realize that there are features of evolution that they should (or must ultimately) accept, while at the same time admitting that evolution is not an absolute universal truth in all areas of science, faith and knowledge. This is not bait to reveal your anti-evolutionary components, but rather to uncover just where you may in fact be healthily non-evolutionary. In my case, I believe evolutionary theory is not a universal model to be used in all disciplines of the academy. Certainly though, it does have deep historical roots and connections in my main area of study; evolutionary theories have been abused there also.
For example, I am against evolution or anti-evolution in the sociological sense of the term used (or implied) in bipod's example below:
"I think Elsberry's use of principles like this in his reasoning are largely a result of his long involvement in anti-creationist activities. You can't blame him for it. We're products of our environment." - bipod
Yes, we are partly products of our environment, but it would be environmentally deterministic (cf. evolutionism) to deny individuals creativity to come to their own type of 'reasoning' independent of some party line. Internets and libraries, for example, are wonderful portals to getting outside of the environmental pressures of a certain social group or community of scholars. Probably bipod's phrase 'largely the result' gives him a buffer from commiting to such an evolutionary sociological (cf. deterministic) view. And I do believe even W. Elsberry could change his views/principles if the right idea, person or feeling overtook him.
Arago
Comment by g arago — February 1, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:14 am
What would happen if the creationists began to embrace the critic's watered-down definition of creationism?
A few years back, I wrote: "One may attempt to define "Creationist" as anyone who believes Nature or Life or some form of Life was "created" rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of "Creationist." Yet imagine the ICR put out a pamphlet stating, "Creationist Francis Crick (who helped discover the Double Helix nature of DNA) was so incredulous of abiogenesis that he proposed the first life forms were designed and deposited on this planet." I think it obvious those previously proposing the watered down definition would now accuse the ICR of misrepresenting Crick as a creationist, indicating that they really don't take their watered down definition seriously. Clearly, if the definition of "Creationist" can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate."
Let's expand on this. Let's say AiG writes an article crediting Creationists for discovering the double helix and sequencing the human genome. Upon reading, we find that the creationists are Francis Crick and Francis Collins. How do you think the critics would respond? It would be interesting to then watch them come up with a tailor-made definition that works to exclude Crick, Collins, Miller and others from the creationist label, yet include people like Behe. I'm sure it could be done; but it would also be blatantly obvious that they were painting targets around arrows.
Or take it the other way. Derwood equates the critic's use of the "˜creationist' label with the creationist's use of the "˜Darwinist' label. If have long refrained from using this label because it does upset the critics. But if the critic is allowed to water down the term "˜creationist,' why does the critic think someone else is not allowed to water down the "˜Darwinist' label? Say we define a "˜Darwinist' as someone who believes the driving mechanism behind evolution has been variation and natural selection. So why would the critics complain if people label Elsberry, for example , as a Darwinist? It's okay to label Behe a "˜creationist,' but it's wrong to label Elsberry a Darwinist?
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2006 @ 1:14 am
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:17 am
I think Barbara Forrest already found a way at Dover.
Comment by Pez — February 2, 2006 @ 3:17 am
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Pez, if you have it handy, what was Forrest's definition?
Comment by Eric Anderson — February 2, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:46 am
Hi Eric.
You will have to read into this a bit to infer the definition itself, but here is the way that Barbara Forrest accomplished the feat in Dover.
Barbara Forrest
Day Six
Cross-examination
Page 110 +
Q:
Is Dr. Miller a Creationist?
A:
Dr. Ken MIller is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Roman Catholic.
Q:
Would you consider him a Creationist?
A:
Not in the sense, no, I would not.
Q:
Well Dr. Miller testified in this case that, quote, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry, end quote.
Is that a Creationist talking?
A:
In his own personal viewpoints, I understand Dr. Miller to be a theistic evolutionist.
And that is a position that intelligent design advocates vehemently object to. They do not consider it a valid position.
Q:
Michael Behe. Is he one of them?
A:
Michael Behe, as I understand him, is a Creationist.
A:
Dr. Miller as I understand him, is not a Creationist. He certainly believes in God. He has been very open and upfront about that. But his view about the science is that he accepts evolutionary biology, and he finds no inconsistency between his understandings as a scientist and his viewpoints as a Roman Catholic.
Q: Well, using your methodology then, and accepting what Dr. Miller has to say about God, the Creator of all things seen and unseen, should you disregard anything that Ken MIller says as unscientific?
A:
It would depend, sir, on a specific statement. …
Q:
And he's also testified, quote, God is the author of nature, and therefore, I believe that things that happen in nature are consistent with God's overall plan, and evolution is a natural process, end quote.
I have deleted my running commentary after I wrote this.
You may feel free to add your own.
Comment by Pez — February 3, 2006 @ 5:46 am
February 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 am
Please excuse if I remind people that this thread is about 'anti-evolution.' It is not about 'creationists' or 'Darwinists' or about Ken Miller or B. Forrest. Mike Gene has subtely distracted from the topic (likely) because he simply does not wish to answer which aspects of evolutionary theory he disagrees with. Viewers might wonder: why not?
A universal ideological evolutionist, such as Mike Gene, would be highly unlikely to admit that anything to do with evolution might be untrue or exaggerated. Anti-evolution is, however, the topic of the thread. Bipod didn't even use the word 'creationist' in his OP.
Comment by g arago — February 3, 2006 @ 11:34 am
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Thanks for the timely moderation, Greg.
I'll keep it in mind.
Comment by Pez — February 3, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
February 4th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Come to notice it, truth be told, it was Mike Gene who first used the term 'creationist' in this thread. Surprise, surprise.
What does it mean then, to be an anti-evolutionist, Mike, Krauze and bipod? Is there any part of you, even just a hint of a speck or a glimpse of a possibility that is against (even an aspect of) evolution?
~
Hello Pez,
Perhaps we've not yet formally met, but thanks for your comments also.
Greg
Comment by g arago — February 4, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Wesley Elsberry,
"Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it."
He owes me an apology. Not to mention a retraction of the above lie.
Comment by Douglas — February 5, 2006 @ 10:43 am
February 5th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Barbara Forrest
Day Six
Cross-examination
Page 110 +
"And on the Sixth Day, Barbara Forrest was cross-examined regarding the term, 'Creationist'. Lo, God saw that it was 'not very good'."
Comment by Douglas — February 5, 2006 @ 10:46 am