Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology
catshark
Well, he didn't mean to say that, but you be the <cough> judge:
Luskin is going on over at Evolution News & Views about Judge Jones'
supposed violation of the 1st Amendment because he found that:
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID
make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their
presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical
to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to
religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’
scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution
represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with,
nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
<http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/find_out_about_true_religion_a.html>
According to Luskin:
Many people have the religious view that evolution "is
antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme
being." Yet Judge Jones promoted pro-evolution-only-theology
by writing that this particular religious view is "utterly
false."
Casey, me lad . . . the Judge wasn't ruling about what people may believe.
His one and only concern was whether ID may be injected into a public
school *science* class.
Unless Luskin is admitting that ID *is* theology, Jones' ruling couldn't
have affected those people or their beliefs.
Now, of course, Luskin is engaged in some sleight of hand. Judge Jones was
in no way saying that there are *no* believers who find evolution contrary
to their religion. And he certainly wasn't calling their beliefs false. He
was saying that the "presupposition . . . that evolutionary theory is
antithetical to _a_ belief in the existence of _a_ supreme being and to
religion _in general_" is not true. He was summing up in that section and
stated a well-known fact that many believers have no trouble reconciling
evolution and faith in a divine creator. Even Luskin's own complaint admits
that fact: If *many* people find evolution antithetical to their beliefs,
that necessarily means others do not find it so. The denial of that fact
is what Jones called "utterly false." And he was utterly right.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Intelligent design itself does not have any content.
George Gilder
Cofounder of the Discovery Institute
michael...@worldnet.att.net
catshark wrote:
> Luskin is going on over at Evolution News & Views about Judge Jones'
> supposed violation of the 1st Amendment because he found that:
>
It appears Luskin will be arguing about this till the day he dies. When
he does the heaven thing, he'll be amazed to discover that the decision
still stands.
-- Mike Palmer
Vend
catshark wrote:
> <snip>
> According to Luskin:
>
> Many people have the religious view that evolution "is
> antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme
> being." Yet Judge Jones promoted pro-evolution-only-theology
> by writing that this particular religious view is "utterly
> false."
>
I have the religious view that the earth is the center of the universe
and the planets are moved by angels, thus for me universal gravity "is
antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being". Yet all
educated people of the world promote pro-gravity-only-theology by
writing that this particular religious view is "utterly false".
> <snip>
_Arthur
> It appears Luskin will be arguing about this till the day he dies. When
> he does the heaven thing, he'll be amazed to discover that the decision
> still stands.
>
> -- Mike Palmer
Hey, Lusky might not even make it to Heavens ! He might learn a little
too late that Lying for Jesus is still counted as a Sin by He who keeps
the Big Score.
VoiceOfReason
It never ceases to amaze me that these folks who consider themselves
"true Americans" snivel and whine about how "unfair" the courts are to
them, even to the point of misrepresenting what the court really said.
It seems integrity is pretty low on their list of priorities.
UC
But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
Christian belief.
catshark
Asa Gray, I think quoting someone (my reference is at home), pointed
out that he believed in a purpose in the universe because he believed
in God, *not* vice versa.
The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
Christian belief. It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time or
another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
The people whose faith can't survive learning more about the universe
didn't have much to lose in the first place.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed
by a cloud of comforting convictions which
move with him like flies on a summer day.
- Bertrand Russell -
Googler
True.
Let me just add this for some context, if I may.
It was an extremenly important 'finding of fact' for this case that
the theory of evolution be found to be NOT be a religious doctrine as
defined by Constitutional law.
One would have thought that such a finding would be part of settled
law, but Judge Jones apparently felt it had to be reiterated. In view
of articles like Luskin's, it would appear that the reiteration is
necessary.
Obviously, if that finding could NOT be made - for whatever reasons -
then the teaching of evolution, for the purposes of Constitutional law,
would fall under the teaching of religion.
Since, however, in the actual event that finding WAS made - and a
further finding made that the theory of evolution was a scientific
theory - then it becomes appropriate to teach it in a public school
science class.
In other words, the finding specifically addressed the statement, made
by Luskin, that teaching biological evolution is in ANY way the same as
teaching a theology, and specifically rejected it.
In marked contrast to this finding, creationism and ID ARE found to be
religious doctrines, and are NOT found to be scientific theories.
What Luskin and others are really complaining about is that THEIR
limited view of religion cannot accomodate a scientific fact like
biological evolution.
I would submit that the problem, then, is not with teaching evolution
as science, but perhaps with some mistaken view of what their religion
actually teaches.
UC
Of course it does.
http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/professionoffaith.shtml
"How did I come to be?
God made me in his own image and likeness when I was formed in my
mother's womb."
> It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time or
> another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
WTF does THAT mean?
Dave
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uranium-1156956...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Reading that, even with the simplistic view you appear to be using, impunes
developmental biology, not evolution.
> > It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time or
> > another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
>
> WTF does THAT mean?
Youre the linuguist, figure it out. It appears quite straight forward to
me.
TomS
<uranium-1156956...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, UC stated..."
>
>
>catshark wrote:
[...snip...]
>> The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
>> development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
>> system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
>> Christian belief.
>
>Of course it does.
>
>http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/professionoffaith.shtml
>
>"How did I come to be?
>
> God made me in his own image and likeness when I was formed in my
>mother's womb."
If so, then this is an argument against reproductive biology, not against
evolutionary biology.
The parody of "Scientific Storkism" is not so far off.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
UC
No, it says "God made me". It does not say something else. Can't you
read? I was fed this crap in my youth. (I got better.)
Tom McDonald
UC wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:uranium-1156956...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > > Of course it does.
> > >
> > > http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/professionoffaith.shtml
> > >
> > > "How did I come to be?
> > >
> > > God made me in his own image and likeness when I was formed in my
> > > mother's womb."
> >
> > Reading that, even with the simplistic view you appear to be using, impunes
> > developmental biology, not evolution.
>
> No, it says "God made me". It does not say something else. Can't you
> read? I was fed this crap in my youth. (I got better.)
No you did not get better. You have merely shifted your belief system
from 'God = yes' to 'God = no.' In most of your postings, you exhibit
the rigid intransigence and brittle sense of being right that is most
often seen here in religious young earth creationists.
Getting better involves shaking off the baggage of your own personal
upbringing and being OK enough with yourself and what you now believe
that you are not threatened by folks who don't believe as you do. You
may get there. You're not there yet.
<snip>
Dave
Yes it does say something else, namely "in his own image and likeness when I
was _formed_ _in_ _my_ _mother's_ _womb_." [Emphais mine] So explain how
this affects evolution rather than developmental biology?
And even that view is simplistic, *because* it doesnt say anything further,
namely how "God made me."
John Harshman
There are several possible interpretations here. Let's see.
1. God actually makes every person from scratch, with no contribution
from parents. This falsifies both evolution and developoment.
2. God makes soem portion of every person, but parents contribute a
portion too. This portion could be anything from near interpretation 1
to a "spark of life" or "soul", which would be biologically
undetectable. Most views of this sort would be compatible both with
evolution and with development.
3. Each conception is part of God's plan, made in the initial creation,
though he does not intervene directly at the moment a person is formed,
which process happens by ordinary, physical means. Compatible with
evolution and development.
I'm having trouble thinking of an interpretation that is both
incompatible with evolution and compatible with development. Perhaps UC
has an interpretation to share with us. (Though prior experience
suggests not.)
macaddicted
I think you need to read up more on the theology of the Imago Dei.
>
> > It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time or
> > another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
>
> WTF does THAT mean?
> >
> > The people whose faith can't survive learning more about the universe
> > didn't have much to lose in the first place.
> >
> > --
> > ---------------
> > J. Pieret
> > ---------------
> >
> > Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed
> > by a cloud of comforting convictions which
> > move with him like flies on a summer day.
> >
> > - Bertrand Russell -
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
wade
> > > Of course it does.
> > >
> > > http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/professionoffaith.shtml
> > >
> > > "How did I come to be?
> > >
> > > God made me in his own image and likeness when I was formed in my
> > > mother's womb."
> >
> > Reading that, even with the simplistic view you appear to be using, impunes
> > developmental biology, not evolution.
>
> No, it says "God made me". It does not say something else. Can't you
> read? I was fed this crap in my youth. (I got better.)
The mind of a literalist is an amazing thing.
I feel the need to create as well so I think I shall go make water.
catshark
TomS wrote:
> "On 30 Aug 2006 09:53:33 -0700, in article
> <uranium-1156956...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, UC stated..."
> >
> >
> >catshark wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >> The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
> >> development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
> >> system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
> >> Christian belief.
> >
> >Of course it does.
> >
> >http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/professionoffaith.shtml
> >
> >"How did I come to be?
> >
> > God made me in his own image and likeness when I was formed in my
> >mother's womb."
> [...snip...]
>
> If so, then this is an argument against reproductive biology, not against
> evolutionary biology.
>
> The parody of "Scientific Storkism" is not so far off.
Heh. I was telling someone about your point just earlier today:
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31148415&postID=115692250722831770>
Little did I know that UC was going to try to prove me wrong about
there being no rush to Storkism so soon! ;-)
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions
have a pathetic, if praiseworthy, tendency to die
before reproducing their kind.
- Willard van Ormand Quine -
VoiceOfReason
Only for those with very weak faith.
UC
VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > Cofounder of the Discovery Institute
> >
> > But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
> > organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
> > exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
> > Christian belief.
>
> Only for those with very weak faith.
What do you need a faith FOR?
Larry Moran
> UC wrote:
[snip]
>> But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
>> organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
>> exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
>> Christian belief.
>
> Asa Gray, I think quoting someone (my reference is at home), pointed
> out that he believed in a purpose in the universe because he believed
> in God, *not* vice versa.
>
> The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
> development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
> system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
> Christian belief. It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time or
> another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
>
> The people whose faith can't survive learning more about the universe
> didn't have much to lose in the first place.
I think you are trivializing an important problem for most theists.
I recommend this book ...
DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA, W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse eds.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
There are many excellent articles. Here's a passage from John Haught's
article "Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence."
What may add some credibility to the ID preoccupations,
rendering them less specious than they might at first seem,
is the fact that many evolutionary biologists (and philosophers
of biology) agree that Dawrin's "dangerous idea" does indeed
destroy the classical argument from design and that in so
doing it exorcizes from scientifically enlightened consciousness
the last remaining traces of cosmic teleology and supernaturalism.
Since religion ... stands or falls with the question of cosmic
purpose, the Darwinian debunking of designóand with it the
apparent undoing of cosmic teleology as wellóstrikes right at
the heart of the most prized religious intuition of humans, now
and always. Darwinism seems to many Darwinians - and not just
to IDT advocates such as Philip Johnson. Michael Behe, and
William Dembski - to entail a materialistic and even anti-
theistic philosophy of nature. Michael Ruse even refers to
Darwinism as "the apotheosis of a materialist theory."
Consequently, it seems to many theists as well as to many
scientists that we must choose *between* Darwinism and devine
Providence. (p. 230)
I've met many theists who felt this way. They struggled with the problem
of reconciling their traditional religious beliefs with modern science.
Many of them abandoned religion. Their faith didn't didn't survive the
confrontation with science. (I guess you'd say that they didn't have
much to lose.)
Perhaps you can help some of those who are still struggling by explaining
how your faith stands up to the lack of purpose in the universe?
Larry Moran
John Harshman
> purpose, the Darwinian debunking of design—and with it the
> apparent undoing of cosmic teleology as well—strikes right at
> the heart of the most prized religious intuition of humans, now
> and always. Darwinism seems to many Darwinians - and not just
> to IDT advocates such as Philip Johnson. Michael Behe, and
> William Dembski - to entail a materialistic and even anti-
> theistic philosophy of nature. Michael Ruse even refers to
> Darwinism as "the apotheosis of a materialist theory."
> Consequently, it seems to many theists as well as to many
> scientists that we must choose *between* Darwinism and devine
> Providence. (p. 230)
>
> I've met many theists who felt this way. They struggled with the problem
> of reconciling their traditional religious beliefs with modern science.
> Many of them abandoned religion. Their faith didn't didn't survive the
> confrontation with science. (I guess you'd say that they didn't have
> much to lose.)
>
> Perhaps you can help some of those who are still struggling by explaining
> how your faith stands up to the lack of purpose in the universe?
If this is a problem, I don't think that evolutionary biology is
entirely (or even mainly) responsible for it. The purposeful universe
(and most particularly the universe whose purpose is us) suffers from
any examination of reality, not just biology. Copernicus, Newton,
Hutton, and Hubble are equally or more at fault than Darwin. A giant,
ancient universe in which we are in no way at the center and in which we
are in no way a significant proportion of the whole is the most powerful
argument against purpose.
The second most powerful, to me, is still not evolution, but simple
observation of the modern world. Is virtue rewarded, vice punished? Is
prayer answered at greater than chance rates? Is there in fact any sign
that God is working in the modern world? Only to the highly selective
eyes of true believers who, when 10 people die and one survives, point
to the survival as evidence of answered prayers.
Evolution is way down on the list. I don't understand why so many
theists (and atheists?) consider it a special problem.
Johnny Bravo
>But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
>organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
>exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
>Christian belief.
As an atheist I notice this general argument a lot. My response is simple -
"Who are you to limit God's choice of tools?"
UC
What 'God'?
Deadrat
news:1156956128.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
I'll admit that I only made a brief perusal of the decision, but I can't
find this "finding of fact." The judge assumes that evolution is biology
(and thus science), but I don't think that anyone asserted otherwise.
And why would they? The plaintiffs didn't need to show that evolution
was science to get ID decared as religion, and it wouldn't have helped
the defendants to get evolution declared as religion.
>
> One would have thought that such a finding would be part of settled
> law, but Judge Jones apparently felt it had to be reiterated. In view
> of articles like Luskin's, it would appear that the reiteration is
> necessary.
Could you point out where the judge made that part of his ruling?
>
> Obviously, if that finding could NOT be made - for whatever reasons -
> then the teaching of evolution, for the purposes of Constitutional
> law, would fall under the teaching of religion.
Why would that be? The opposite of science is pseudoscience, which may
or may not be religion.
>
> Since, however, in the actual event that finding WAS made - and a
> further finding made that the theory of evolution was a scientific
> theory - then it becomes appropriate to teach it in a public school
> science class.
Was this an issue in the case?
>
> In other words, the finding specifically addressed the statement, made
> by Luskin, that teaching biological evolution is in ANY way the same
> as teaching a theology, and specifically rejected it.
Well, if the finding specifically addresses Luskin's statement, it does
so without using the word "theology," which appears only once, on p. 89:
"ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science." But the subject is
ID, not evolution.
>
> In marked contrast to this finding, creationism and ID ARE found to
> be religious doctrines, and are NOT found to be scientific theories.
>
> What Luskin and others are really complaining about is that THEIR
> limited view of religion cannot accomodate a scientific fact like
> biological evolution.
I thought that Luskin et al. were complaining that the judge had defined
science in such a way as to leave them out.
>
> I would submit that the problem, then, is not with teaching evolution
> as science, but perhaps with some mistaken view of what their religion
> actually teaches.
Could you explain this further?
Deadrat
catshark
(Larry Moran) wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2006 09:38:58 -0700, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
>>> organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
>>> exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
>>> Christian belief.
>>
>> Asa Gray, I think quoting someone (my reference is at home), pointed
>> out that he believed in a purpose in the universe because he believed
>> in God, *not* vice versa.
>>
>> The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
>> development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
>> system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
>> Christian belief. It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time or
>> another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
>>
>> The people whose faith can't survive learning more about the universe
>> didn't have much to lose in the first place.
>
>I think you are trivializing an important problem for most theists.
I don't quite understand. Are you saying that only things that come easily
are worthwhile? I would have thought almost the opposite but maybe that's
just me.
>
>I recommend this book ...
>
> DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA, W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse eds.
> Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
>
>There are many excellent articles. Here's a passage from John Haught's
>article "Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence."
>
> What may add some credibility to the ID preoccupations,
> rendering them less specious than they might at first seem,
> is the fact that many evolutionary biologists (and philosophers
> of biology) agree that Dawrin's "dangerous idea" does indeed
> destroy the classical argument from design and that in so
> doing it exorcizes from scientifically enlightened consciousness
> the last remaining traces of cosmic teleology and supernaturalism.
> Since religion ... stands or falls with the question of cosmic
> purpose, the Darwinian debunking of designóand with it the
> apparent undoing of cosmic teleology as wellóstrikes right at
> the heart of the most prized religious intuition of humans, now
> and always. Darwinism seems to many Darwinians - and not just
> to IDT advocates such as Philip Johnson. Michael Behe, and
> William Dembski - to entail a materialistic and even anti-
> theistic philosophy of nature. Michael Ruse even refers to
> Darwinism as "the apotheosis of a materialist theory."
> Consequently, it seems to many theists as well as to many
> scientists that we must choose *between* Darwinism and devine
> Providence. (p. 230)
And yet, as far as I know, Haught is is still a believer and enough of a
"Darwinist" to testify for the plaintiffs in the Dover case.
And I'm not sure that a "contrived dualism" is any more a valid argument in
the hands of an atheist than it is in those of a creationist.
>
>I've met many theists who felt this way. They struggled with the problem
>of reconciling their traditional religious beliefs with modern science.
>Many of them abandoned religion. Their faith didn't didn't survive the
>confrontation with science. (I guess you'd say that they didn't have
>much to lose.)
*If* they based their faith on simple black and white dualism and demands
that God live up to their expectations or they'll pout by not believing
anymore, then yes, it was a poor kind of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately
faith.
As Harshman has pointed out, science is hardly the only or even the
greatest challenge to the belief in a personal God (that is neither
indifferent nor outright evil, at least). People lived through the Black
Death and came out believing. One of the tenets of many faiths is that this
life is the ridiculously short prelude to eternal life. What does
suffering in this life mean up against eternal bliss? If the God giving
you that gift thinks you need some suffering to prepare you for it, who can
say that is any more evil that the pain doctors inflict on children to save
from cancer?
Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
*theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
But do you really think that science was the *only* reason these people
lost their faith?
>
>Perhaps you can help some of those who are still struggling by explaining
>how your faith stands up to the lack of purpose in the universe?
Well, as I've told you before (though it's ok that you didn't remember), I
am not a believer. At most I'm an agnostic about Spinoza's god or
thereabouts.
In any case, the most that you can legitimately claim is a lack of purpose
in the universe _that is detectable by science_. Going back to Gray, he
thought evolution could be directed by the occasional intervention of God
in otherwise random variation (what we now know as mutation). If God were
to, by miraculous (and, by definition, undetectable to science) means,
produce a mutation just of the right sort at the right time to set a
primate along the path to humans, how would we ever know?
I think you, like the creationists in their own way, give science too much
credit.
VoiceOfReason
Because I choose to have faith.
TomS
<1156997211.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, VoiceOfReason
stated..."
Isn't that a gift of God?
VoiceOfReason
TomS wrote:
> "On 30 Aug 2006 21:06:51 -0700, in article
> <1156997211.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, VoiceOfReason
> stated..."
> >
> >
> >UC wrote:
> >> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > Cofounder of the Discovery Institute
> >> > >
> >> > > But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
> >> > > organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
> >> > > exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
> >> > > Christian belief.
> >> >
> >> > Only for those with very weak faith.
> >>
> >> What do you need a faith FOR?
> >
> >Because I choose to have faith.
> >
>
> Isn't that a gift of God?
Hmmm, I know of that passage, but dunno if I accept that
interpretation. IMO, faith should be more of a conscious choice.
Robin Levett
Perhaps he has a dictionary definition that would help?
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Larry Moran
catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:00:48 +0000 (UTC),
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 09:38:58 -0700, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
[snip]
>>> The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
>>> development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
>>> system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
>>> Christian belief. It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time
>>> or another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
>>>
>>> The people whose faith can't survive learning more about the universe
>>> didn't have much to lose in the first place.
>>
>>I think you are trivializing an important problem for most theists.
>
> I don't quite understand. Are you saying that only things that come
> easily are worthwhile? I would have thought almost the opposite but
> maybe that's just me.
I don't disagree. I'm merely saying there are serious theologians
who have addressed the issue and they think there's a problem that
can't be easily resolved.
When you say, "... people whose faith can't survive learning more about
the universe didn't have much to lose in the first place" this seems
to impugn friends of mine whose faith is/was very strong.
In my experience, there are many Christians who constantly subject
their beliefs to rational examination. They take the risk that their
religion might fail the test but that doesn't mean their faith is weak.
In my experience there are many so-called Christians whose faith is
so (irrationally) strong that it will resist any learning about the
universe.
That's right. He has a "solution" to the problem. I was using him as an
example of someone who recognizes the problem.
> And I'm not sure that a "contrived dualism" is any more a valid
> argument in the hands of an atheist than it is in those of a
> creationist.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
>>I've met many theists who felt this way. They struggled with the problem
>>of reconciling their traditional religious beliefs with modern science.
>>Many of them abandoned religion. Their faith didn't didn't survive the
>>confrontation with science. (I guess you'd say that they didn't have
>>much to lose.)
>
> *If* they based their faith on simple black and white dualism and demands
> that God live up to their expectations or they'll pout by not believing
> anymore, then yes, it was a poor kind of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately
> faith.
A true Scotsman point of view!
> As Harshman has pointed out, science is hardly the only or even the
> greatest challenge to the belief in a personal God (that is neither
> indifferent nor outright evil, at least). People lived through the Black
> Death and came out believing. One of the tenets of many faiths is that
> this life is the ridiculously short prelude to eternal life. What does
> suffering in this life mean up against eternal bliss? If the God giving
> you that gift thinks you need some suffering to prepare you for it, who
> can say that is any more evil that the pain doctors inflict on children
> to save from cancer?
Whatever. All I know is that there seems to be a conflict today between
science and religion.
> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
> But do you really think that science was the *only* reason these people
> lost their faith?
I don't know for sure but it certainly was a powerful catalyst, unless
they were lying to me.
>>Perhaps you can help some of those who are still struggling by explaining
>>how your faith stands up to the lack of purpose in the universe?
>
> Well, as I've told you before (though it's ok that you didn't remember),
> I am not a believer. At most I'm an agnostic about Spinoza's god or
> thereabouts.
Then why are you so adamant about offering *theological* opinions? Why
should I accept your explanation of theology over that of Stanley and
others who *are* believers? Is your opinion better than the pizza
delivery boy's?
> In any case, the most that you can legitimately claim is a lack of
> purpose in the universe _that is detectable by science_.
Exactly right. That's one of the points I make in version 2 of my
essay ...
bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
Science says that there is no purpose to evolution and any explanation
that offers up a purpose is not science. This includes theistic evolution.
> Going back to Gray, he thought evolution could be directed by the
> occasional intervention of God in otherwise random variation (what we
> now know as mutation). If God were to, by miraculous (and, by definition,
> undetectable to science) means, produce a mutation just of the right
> sort at the right time to set a primate along the path to humans, how
> would we ever know?
We might never know, but such *explanations* are not scientific.
> I think you, like the creationists in their own way, give science too
> much credit.
Read my revised essay and address the particular points that I make there.
You can believe whatever you want, including Flying Spaghetti Monsters,
just don't call it science.
Larry Moran
Johnny Bravo
Whichever one the particular fundie is saying can't use evolution.
Robin Levett
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippage>
>> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
>> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
>> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>
> I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you don't
have a theological opinion...
<snippage>
catshark
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:00:48 +0000 (UTC),
> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2006 09:38:58 -0700, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> The mere fact that science gives a naturalistic explanation for the
> >>> development of life, as it had before for the formation of the solar
> >>> system, with the nebular hypothesis, does not go to the heart of
> >>> Christian belief. It merely goes to how *people* happen, at one time
> >>> or another, to think God *manifests* that purpose.
> >>>
> >>> The people whose faith can't survive learning more about the universe
> >>> didn't have much to lose in the first place.
> >>
> >>I think you are trivializing an important problem for most theists.
> >
> > I don't quite understand. Are you saying that only things that come
> > easily are worthwhile? I would have thought almost the opposite but
> > maybe that's just me.
>
> I don't disagree. I'm merely saying there are serious theologians
> who have addressed the issue and they think there's a problem that
> can't be easily resolved.
That *some* people find difficult to resolve.
>
> When you say, "... people whose faith can't survive learning more about
> the universe didn't have much to lose in the first place" this seems
> to impugn friends of mine whose faith is/was very strong.
If the *only* thing that made them lose that faith was some scientific
"fact" about the world, then their faith must be relatively weak
compared to their belief in the philosophy of empiricism/science. For
people like creationists who *fear* this result, it is just an
acknowledgement of how weak they think their own faith is. In the case
of people who are seriously troubled by it, are they better off holding
onto a weak belief (pehaps held only because they were raised in a
faith) or are they better off acknowledging their true beliefs?
>
> In my experience, there are many Christians who constantly subject
> their beliefs to rational examination.
Really? How exactly? I am genuinely interested in what rational (much
less scientific) test they put their faith to and just what "beliefs"
you are talking about.
> They take the risk that their
> religion might fail the test but that doesn't mean their faith is weak.
Re-examination of faith is, to my mind, a wise theological course.
> In my experience there are many so-called Christians whose faith is
> so (irrationally) strong that it will resist any learning about the
> universe.
Certainly true. Now, do you think rationality *should* be a part of
theological belief?
>
> >>I recommend this book ...
> >>
> >> DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA, W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse eds.
> >> Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
> >>
> >>There are many excellent articles. Here's a passage from John Haught's
> >>article "Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence."
> >>
> >> What may add some credibility to the ID preoccupations,
> >> rendering them less specious than they might at first seem,
> >> is the fact that many evolutionary biologists (and philosophers
> >> of biology) agree that Dawrin's "dangerous idea" does indeed
> >> destroy the classical argument from design and that in so
> >> doing it exorcizes from scientifically enlightened consciousness
> >> the last remaining traces of cosmic teleology and supernaturalism.
> >> Since religion ... stands or falls with the question of cosmic
> >> purpose, the Darwinian debunking of design-and with it the
> >> apparent undoing of cosmic teleology as well-strikes right at
> >> the heart of the most prized religious intuition of humans, now
> >> and always. Darwinism seems to many Darwinians - and not just
> >> to IDT advocates such as Philip Johnson. Michael Behe, and
> >> William Dembski - to entail a materialistic and even anti-
> >> theistic philosophy of nature. Michael Ruse even refers to
> >> Darwinism as "the apotheosis of a materialist theory."
> >> Consequently, it seems to many theists as well as to many
> >> scientists that we must choose *between* Darwinism and devine
> >> Providence. (p. 230)
> >
> > And yet, as far as I know, Haught is is still a believer and enough of
> > a "Darwinist" to testify for the plaintiffs in the Dover case.
>
> That's right. He has a "solution" to the problem. I was using him as an
> example of someone who recognizes the problem.
Well, I don't have the book but my suspicion is that Haught was leading
up to a big "but", followed by an explanation as to why the "problem"
isn't as difficult as it seems.
>
> > And I'm not sure that a "contrived dualism" is any more a valid
> > argument in the hands of an atheist than it is in those of a
> > creationist.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that.
What Haught is describing above is a version of the "contrived duality"
that Judge Jones found implicit in ID; that was part of creation
science before that and, indeed, goes back before Paley. But atheists
who hold the same position -- that evidence of a "naturalistic"
explanation disproves supernatural causation (of some sort or another)
-- are engaged in the same error, IMO.
>
> >>I've met many theists who felt this way. They struggled with the problem
> >>of reconciling their traditional religious beliefs with modern science.
> >>Many of them abandoned religion. Their faith didn't didn't survive the
> >>confrontation with science. (I guess you'd say that they didn't have
> >>much to lose.)
> >
> > *If* they based their faith on simple black and white dualism and demands
> > that God live up to their expectations or they'll pout by not believing
> > anymore, then yes, it was a poor kind of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately
> > faith.
>
> A true Scotsman point of view!
If you can convince me that a faith that is killed by merely "learning
more about the universe" isn't described by the above, I'll accept that
I've unfairly included those friends of yours in what I said. Somehow,
however, I suspect *you* are underestimating *them*.
>
> > As Harshman has pointed out, science is hardly the only or even the
> > greatest challenge to the belief in a personal God (that is neither
> > indifferent nor outright evil, at least). People lived through the Black
> > Death and came out believing. One of the tenets of many faiths is that
> > this life is the ridiculously short prelude to eternal life. What does
> > suffering in this life mean up against eternal bliss? If the God giving
> > you that gift thinks you need some suffering to prepare you for it, who
> > can say that is any more evil that the pain doctors inflict on children
> > to save from cancer?
>
> Whatever. All I know is that there seems to be a conflict today between
> science and religion.
There is a conflict between people who claim to speak for science and
those who claim to speak for religion.
>
> > Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
> > *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
> > Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>
> I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
If you make judgments about the value of theologial propositions and
arguments, you have a theological opinion.
>
> > But do you really think that science was the *only* reason these people
> > lost their faith?
>
> I don't know for sure but it certainly was a powerful catalyst, unless
> they were lying to me.
Then they are already out of the group I was speaking about.
>
> >>Perhaps you can help some of those who are still struggling by explaining
> >>how your faith stands up to the lack of purpose in the universe?
> >
> > Well, as I've told you before (though it's ok that you didn't remember),
> > I am not a believer. At most I'm an agnostic about Spinoza's god or
> > thereabouts.
>
> Then why are you so adamant about offering *theological* opinions?
Actually, I am adamant about the catagories of "science" and
"theology", not the theology itself.
> Why
> should I accept your explanation of theology over that of Stanley and
> others who *are* believers?
If you mean Stanley Friesen, if he has contradicted me about the nature
of theology and what falls within it as opposed to what falls within
science, then I'd be inclined to seriously consider Stanley's position.
I haven't seen that. Want to point me to an example?
> Is your opinion better than the pizza
> delivery boy's?
Well, I am not giving opinions about the value of the theology, just
about what is and isn't science. But if I tell you that your theology
sucks, put me down for extra anchovies when you go for a second
opinion.
>
> > In any case, the most that you can legitimately claim is a lack of
> > purpose in the universe _that is detectable by science_.
>
> Exactly right. That's one of the points I make in version 2 of my
> essay ...
>
> bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
Ah! I did not know you revised it. I'll take a look when I can and
let you know what I think.
>
> Science says that there is no purpose to evolution and any explanation
> that offers up a purpose is not science. This includes theistic evolution.
Theology is never science.
>
> > Going back to Gray, he thought evolution could be directed by the
> > occasional intervention of God in otherwise random variation (what we
> > now know as mutation). If God were to, by miraculous (and, by definition,
> > undetectable to science) means, produce a mutation just of the right
> > sort at the right time to set a primate along the path to humans, how
> > would we ever know?
>
> We might never know, but such *explanations* are not scientific.
Indeed. Which is why *theistic* evolution is labeled as it is.
>
> > I think you, like the creationists in their own way, give science too
> > much credit.
>
> Read my revised essay
Hopefully this weekend . . .
> and address the particular points that I make there.
> You can believe whatever you want, including Flying Spaghetti Monsters,
> just don't call it science.
I look forward to seeing the examples you give of people doing that.
Michael Siemon
"catshark" <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote:
...
> > > Well, as I've told you before (though it's ok that you didn't remember),
> > > I am not a believer. At most I'm an agnostic about Spinoza's god or
> > > thereabouts.
> >
> > Then why are you so adamant about offering *theological* opinions?
>
> Actually, I am adamant about the catagories of "science" and
> "theology", not the theology itself.
>
> > Why
> > should I accept your explanation of theology over that of Stanley and
> > others who *are* believers?
>
> If you mean Stanley Friesen, if he has contradicted me about the nature
> of theology and what falls within it as opposed to what falls within
> science, then I'd be inclined to seriously consider Stanley's position.
> I haven't seen that. Want to point me to an example?
FWIW, I am in full agreement with the position catshark has been taking,
and I believe Stanley is at least reasonably close in what _he_ has said.
There is nothing in catshark's discussion which requires any particular
"faith" or any faith at all -- it is simple recognition of some basic
category differences, which Larry seems (deliberately and consistently)
to blur and obfuscate.
John Wilkins
> Larry Moran wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> >> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
> >> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
> >> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
> >
> > I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
>
> Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you don't
> have a theological opinion...
>
> <snippage>
I read Larry's comments as a criticism of Miller's *philosophy*, which
is, as it happens, theological, rather than a theological critique of
Miller (which implies good versus bad theology).
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Larry Moran
Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
>> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snippage>
>
>>> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
>>> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
>>> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>>
>> I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
>
> Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you
> don't have a theological opinion...
I'm mostly interested in criticizing his science but just because I
don't have a theological opinion doesn't mean I have to refrain from
poking fun at the theological opinion of others. According to your
logic, only theists could criticize Creationists - is that what you
meant to say?
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> FWIW, I am in full agreement with the position catshark has been taking,
> and I believe Stanley is at least reasonably close in what _he_ has said.
Catshark was criticizing me for criticizing religion when I am an atheist.
Catshark is a non-believer as well so I merely asked why I should listen
to his opinion on religion when I can get it directly from a theist.
BTW, exactly what position is catshark taking that you agree with?
> There is nothing in catshark's discussion which requires any particular
> "faith" or any faith at all -- it is simple recognition of some basic
> category differences, which Larry seems (deliberately and consistently)
> to blur and obfuscate.
Please explain, I don't think you are correct. I say that theistic
evolution is not science because it invokes the supernatural and
supernatural explanations are not scientific. I don't see any confusion
about categories here. Perhaps you are the one who is confused?
Larry Moran
Robin Levett
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:46:53 +0100,
> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Larry Moran wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
>>> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>><snippage>
>>
>>>> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
>>>> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
>>>> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>>>
>>> I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
>>
>> Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you
>> don't have a theological opinion...
>
> I'm mostly interested in criticizing his science
Perhaps you can give an example of this then; all I have seen is your
criticism of his position on TE, which is a theological, not a scientific,
position. What do you criticise in Miller's science - bearing in mind that
science is what scientists do when doing science?
> but just because I
> don't have a theological opinion doesn't mean I have to refrain from
> poking fun at the theological opinion of others. According to your
> logic, only theists could criticize Creationists - is that what you
> meant to say?
No. I have, and express, theological opinions - being a theist isn't a
prerequisite to having theological opinions.
Having said that, I agree with catshark's repeated point to you that one
major difference between Creationists and TEists is that TEists (at least
of Miller's stripe) don't claim that their theology has any scientific
validity or indeed implication.
snex
you didnt answer the question.
Robin Levett
> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Larry Moran wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
>> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> >> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
>> >> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
>> >> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>> >
>> > I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
>>
>> Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you
>> don't have a theological opinion...
>>
>> <snippage>
>
> I read Larry's comments as a criticism of Miller's *philosophy*, which
> is, as it happens, theological, rather than a theological critique of
> Miller (which implies good versus bad theology).
In fact, Larry apparently intends his comments as a criticism of Miller's
(or, perhaps, more generally any TEist's) science...
As I understand the TEist position for these purposes - say Stanley's - he
believes in a God whose intervention has led to the current state of the
biological world, but in ways that are in principle undetectable by
science. I have difficulty in reading that as anything other than a
theological position. Larry's mistake is that he sees it as a scientific
position.
snex
it is a claim as to what forces operate(d) within the natural world.
therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
Robin Levett
It is not - because any force operating within the natural world is in
principle accessible to/obervable by scientific means.
> therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite specifically
disclaims any possibility either of scientific confirmation or scientific
falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological - claim; but
why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do you
reject Gould's NOMA concept?
John Wilkins
No, I think that the TEist position *is* a *scientific* mistake, not a
theological one.
If God intervened in ways that are indistinguishable on any amount of
evidence from the ordinary course of natural evolution, then there is no
scientific rationale whatsoever for positing those events. The only
rationale is theological - that is to say, to reconcile scientifically
investigable processes that are sufficient to explain the course of
evolution with the need to have a God who is somehow responsible for the
outcome.
Darwin clearly understood this - in his correspondence with Asa Gray,
who proposed the TEist view first, he noted
"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always
painful to me.--I am bewildered.--I had no intention to write
atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, &
as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of
us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created
the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the
living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not
believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was
expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to
view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to
conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to
look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details,
whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.
Not that this notion _at all_ satisfies me .... But the more I think the
more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this
letter."
and
"I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your
idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed. I have
asked him (and he says he will hereafter reflect and answer me) whether
he believes that the shape of my nose was designed. If he does I have
nothing more to say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting
individual differences in the nasal bones of pigeons, I must think that
it is illogical to suppose that the variations, which natural selection
preserves for the good of any being have been designed. But I know that
I am in the same sort of muddle (as I have said before) as all the world
seems to be in with respect to free will, yet with everything supposed
to have been foreseen or pre-ordained."
Later he wrote in the Variation
"However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in
his belief that "variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,"
like a stream "along definite and useful lines of irrigation." If we
assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time
preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many
injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of
reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as
a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must
appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an
omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees
everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as
insoluble as is that of free will and predestination."
Basically, the idea that God intervenes in variation is indefensible.
Either God intervenes in *everything*, in which case you have no such
position as "theistic evolution", just "evolution" (just as there is no
"theistic gravitation" or "theistic chemistry"), or he is not
intervening in *anything*. To say otherwise is indeed bad science.
Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
imagination. For at least they don't say that only some science is
acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
Don Cates
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) posted:
Umm, I think that they agree with you there. 'Theistic evolution' is
not a scientific position it is a theological position that is not
inconsistant with 'scientific evolution'. Personally, I don't see how
it can be considered a rational position and I can understand why a
large proportion of scientists, who presumably value rationality,
reject it. I know and respect people who do hold that position but I
strongly suspect that there is a *very* strong element of
cultural/emotional background supporting their decision.
I don't see any confusion
>about categories here. Perhaps you are the one who is confused?
>
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
> Basically, the idea that God intervenes in variation is indefensible.
> Either God intervenes in *everything*, in which case you have no such
> position as "theistic evolution", just "evolution" (just as there is no
> "theistic gravitation" or "theistic chemistry"), or he is not
> intervening in *anything*. To say otherwise is indeed bad science.
It depends on what you mean by "intervene". Insofar as God's "action"
in nature is ongoing and sustaining of it, then indeed God "intervenes"
in everything. My position (and I think Stanley's) is that asserting
"theistic evolution" is _nothing_ more than asserting (what has been
unnecessary for at least a century or two) "theistic astronomy" or
whatever -- it quite explicitly does _not_ mean (in my usage) that
God does "something special" in evolutionary biology [in contrast to
the humdrum maintenance of orbits... or the divine guidance of a
particle through a slit... :-)]. To the (so limited as to be of no
practical consequence) extent that some want to insist that God has
"tweaked" history (but only at a few "special" points), or "tweaked"
cosmology, or whatever, I would in protest describe my position as
"theistic historiography" or "theistic cosmology" -- i.e., I insist
the the science is _all_ we have for objective empirical explanation.
And all we _can_ have.
>
> Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
> novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> imagination. For at least they don't say that only some science is
> acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
And despite my "credo" above, there are indeed those who use the term
"theistic evolution" (and equivalent attitudes about history, cosmo-
logy, physics, etc.) along the line you reject above as "worse science
than the whole creationist imagination". I agree that such attitudes
are pretty bad, though I'm not _quite_ so sure that the position is
really "worse science" than typical fundie Creationism. Such folks
seem to take comfort in the notion that, when the empirical facts
have a range of possible outcomes (e.g., typically at the lowest level
of quantum mechanics), that God is constantly (or sporadically...)
rigging the dice. I don't regard this position as "good theology" --
but I don't really see it as "worse" science than the flat-out rejection
of empirical explanation of the Creationsists.
snex
your words, not mine.
>
> > therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
>
> It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite specifically
> disclaims any possibility either of scientific confirmation or scientific
> falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological - claim; but
> why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do you
> reject Gould's NOMA concept?
it is a claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the natural
world.
catshark
John Wilkins wrote:
> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > > Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Larry Moran wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
> > >> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snippage>
[...]
> Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
> novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> imagination.
But what kind of theology is it?
> For at least they don't say that only some science is
> acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
And when did the results of science get to be demonstrably coextensive
with reality? Who snuck that in behind Hume's back? Or, absent that,
why does saying that science cannot know something the same as saying
it is "all wrong"?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
- Robert T. Pennock -
Robin Levett
Not so. My words were:-
"he believes in a God whose intervention has led to the current state of the
biological world, but in ways that are in principle undetectable by
science."
Do you argue that there can exist forces operating within the natural world
that are in principle inacessible to scientific investigation?
>
>>
>> > therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
>>
>> It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite specifically
>> disclaims any possibility either of scientific confirmation or scientific
>> falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological - claim; but
>> why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do you
>> reject Gould's NOMA concept?
>
> it is a claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the natural
> world.
An effect undetectable by scientific investigation.
Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA concept?
John Wilkins
> In article <1hkzfin.1xuv3p31d2spchN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Basically, the idea that God intervenes in variation is indefensible.
> > Either God intervenes in *everything*, in which case you have no such
> > position as "theistic evolution", just "evolution" (just as there is no
> > "theistic gravitation" or "theistic chemistry"), or he is not
> > intervening in *anything*. To say otherwise is indeed bad science.
>
> It depends on what you mean by "intervene". Insofar as God's "action"
> in nature is ongoing and sustaining of it, then indeed God "intervenes"
> in everything. My position (and I think Stanley's) is that asserting
> "theistic evolution" is _nothing_ more than asserting (what has been
> unnecessary for at least a century or two) "theistic astronomy" or
> whatever -- it quite explicitly does _not_ mean (in my usage) that
> God does "something special" in evolutionary biology [in contrast to
> the humdrum maintenance of orbits... or the divine guidance of a
> particle through a slit... :-)]. To the (so limited as to be of no
> practical consequence) extent that some want to insist that God has
> "tweaked" history (but only at a few "special" points), or "tweaked"
> cosmology, or whatever, I would in protest describe my position as
> "theistic historiography" or "theistic cosmology" -- i.e., I insist
> the the science is _all_ we have for objective empirical explanation.
> And all we _can_ have.
Well that is not the usual "theistic evolution" position, it's just the
standard view of God as creator (by standard, I mean standard in
catholic/orthodox theological traditions, not standard in evangelical
traditions). As I recall, Aquinas said something similar. I think of
that as God tilting the pinball machine...
> >
> > Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> > the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
> > novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> > biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> > imagination. For at least they don't say that only some science is
> > acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
>
> And despite my "credo" above, there are indeed those who use the term
> "theistic evolution" (and equivalent attitudes about history, cosmo-
> logy, physics, etc.) along the line you reject above as "worse science
> than the whole creationist imagination". I agree that such attitudes
> are pretty bad, though I'm not _quite_ so sure that the position is
> really "worse science" than typical fundie Creationism. Such folks
> seem to take comfort in the notion that, when the empirical facts
> have a range of possible outcomes (e.g., typically at the lowest level
> of quantum mechanics), that God is constantly (or sporadically...)
> rigging the dice. I don't regard this position as "good theology" --
> but I don't really see it as "worse" science than the flat-out rejection
> of empirical explanation of the Creationsists.
Creationism is better than bad science because it is clearly no science
at all, so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
to determine how good the theology is).
But from the perspective of good or bad science, which is accessible to
Larry and I, any science that says "well, it's all explicable in terms
of physical properties except occasionally, something skips or jumps the
usual laws, at times we can't say or in ways we can't describe", well,
that's just ID... It's necessarily bad science.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Larry Moran wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
> > > >> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> <snippage>
>
> [...]
>
> > Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> > the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
> > novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> > biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> > imagination.
>
> But what kind of theology is it?
Doesn't matter from the scientific perspective. It might be admirable
and excellent theology in a given tradition (and it clearly is) - it's
still confused science.
>
> > For at least they don't say that only some science is
> > acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
>
> And when did the results of science get to be demonstrably coextensive
> with reality? Who snuck that in behind Hume's back? Or, absent that,
> why does saying that science cannot know something the same as saying
> it is "all wrong"?
This looks like a non sequitur to me. I'm saying that creationism is
better from a scientific perspective because we know it's all wrong, not
that we know science is partly right or anything. TEism is less
desireable because it leaves most of science operating except in
arbitrary ways when it suits theology.
snex
there is no difference between a force that operates undetectably and
nothing at all.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
> >>
> >> It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite specifically
> >> disclaims any possibility either of scientific confirmation or scientific
> >> falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological - claim; but
> >> why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do you
> >> reject Gould's NOMA concept?
> >
> > it is a claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the natural
> > world.
>
> An effect undetectable by scientific investigation.
no, the effect is very detectable. the path of evolution of primates is
detectable. look in the mirror and you will see part of it.
>
> Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA concept?
your question is irrelevant.
Michael Siemon
> better from a scientific perspective because we know it's all wrong, not
> that we know science is partly right or anything. TEism is less
> desireable because it leaves most of science operating except in
> arbitrary ways when it suits theology.
??? That doesn't seem to me to be even remotely close as a description
of what _I_ intend by the term, and even for those who do think there
is (sporadic?) tweaking of things within the natural order of causation,
I don't see it as "bad science" (it's _still_ not science in any way),
but rather as bad theology.
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
> But from the perspective of good or bad science, which is accessible to
> Larry and I, any science that says "well, it's all explicable in terms
> of physical properties except occasionally, something skips or jumps the
> usual laws, at times we can't say or in ways we can't describe", well,
> that's just ID... It's necessarily bad science.
Oh sure. _That_ variant is just full of shit. The notion that God is
a (more or less) constantly interfering busy-body diddling unobservably
with nature on an episodic basis tries to avoid confrontation with
science, but does it in a mealy-mouthed, "nyahh-nyahh-nyahh can't
catch me" sort of way. And it is only infinitesimally better than ID.
I can't escape some very Pythonesque images of such folks entering into
prayer with a breathless, giggling anticipation that _maybe this time_
the L-rd will diddle their wave-functions...
As you note in another post in this thread, my position is really very
standard and venerable within (small "o") orthodox Christian theology,
other than the explicit recognition that biology (developmental and
evolutionary) most definitely is within the pale of that doctrine.
John Wilkins
Sorry, reference error. The TEism of which I speak. Not yours...
But as science, it is bad science, while as science, creationism isn't
even science, so it's not in that reference class...
Robin Levett
I'll take that as a "No"; am I right to do so?
>> >> > therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
>> >>
>> >> It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite specifically
>> >> disclaims any possibility either of scientific confirmation or
>> >> scientific
>> >> falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological - claim;
>> >> but
>> >> why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do you
>> >> reject Gould's NOMA concept?
>> >
>> > it is a claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the natural
>> > world.
>>
>> An effect undetectable by scientific investigation.
>
> no, the effect is very detectable. the path of evolution of primates is
> detectable. look in the mirror and you will see part of it.
That's a result of the process; point me to where you can detect the
intervention of a God in that process.
>
>>
>> Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA
>> concept?
>
> your question is irrelevant.
I am not arguing for the truth of the TEist position - I am an atheist. My
argument is that the TEist position is a theological, not a scientific,
one. The issue of NOMA goes to the essence of that discussion.
catshark
What is science doing dabbling in theology? What "scientific
perspective" are you talking about? Are you denying *methodological*
naturalism?
> because we know it's all wrong, not
> that we know science is partly right or anything. TEism is less
> desireable because it leaves most of science operating except in
> arbitrary ways when it suits theology.
The reference to Hume was to his proposition that science already
operates in arbitrary ways when it suits us to do science, since it (or
inference, at least) cannot be justified. Since when does science (or
a "scientific perspective") determine when "we" *do* science, as
opposed to when we do theology?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
[N]ot everything we humans encounter in our lives
can be neatly and convincingly tucked away
inside the orderly cabinetry of science.
- Mary Roach -
Robin Levett
Precisely.
> - that is to say, to reconcile scientifically
> investigable processes that are sufficient to explain the course of
> evolution with the need to have a God who is somehow responsible for the
> outcome.
>
> Darwin clearly understood this - in his correspondence with Asa Gray,
> who proposed the TEist view first, he noted
>
<snippage>
> Basically, the idea that God intervenes in variation is indefensible.
> Either God intervenes in *everything*, in which case you have no such
> position as "theistic evolution", just "evolution" (just as there is no
> "theistic gravitation" or "theistic chemistry"), or he is not
> intervening in *anything*. To say otherwise is indeed bad science.
I am not quite sure how an agnostic can make that argument. As I understand
that position, inter alia the existence of a God is not amenable to
scientific investigation. If His actions *are* amenable to scientific
investigation, then surely so must be his existence...
> Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
> novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> biology,
That latter at least is IDC, not TEism as Miller is represented as arguing
it.
> but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> imagination.
True.
> For at least they don't say that only some science is
> acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
--
Robin Levett
And the TEist position that I have been arguing is theology, not science,
says nothing different.
>
> Well that is not the usual "theistic evolution" position, it's just the
> standard view of God as creator (by standard, I mean standard in
> catholic/orthodox theological traditions, not standard in evangelical
> traditions). As I recall, Aquinas said something similar. I think of
> that as God tilting the pinball machine...
Is that position not science - in the sense of being scientifically
investigable? That is (to clarify) the sense I have been using all along -
the sense that means that string "theory" is not science, and will not
become science until it makes empirically investigable claims.
Either that position is that God set up the initial conditions such that
humanity as we know it was the inevitable outcome - which is scientifically
investigable, and runs into difficulties with contingency; or that while
the initial conditions were not so set up, there is a general bias to the
universe that skews the outcomes of those initial conditions - which is
again amenable to scientific investigation.
I am taking it that according to orthodox Christian tradition humanity as it
now exists (or is becoming) is the apex (no pun intended) of creation - and
that according to TEism evolution is the method He chose to make Man in His
image and all that.
>
>> >
>> > Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
>> > the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting
>> > a novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
>> > biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
>> > imagination. For at least they don't say that only some science is
>> > acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
>>
>> And despite my "credo" above, there are indeed those who use the term
>> "theistic evolution" (and equivalent attitudes about history, cosmo-
>> logy, physics, etc.) along the line you reject above as "worse science
>> than the whole creationist imagination". I agree that such attitudes
>> are pretty bad, though I'm not _quite_ so sure that the position is
>> really "worse science" than typical fundie Creationism. Such folks
>> seem to take comfort in the notion that, when the empirical facts
>> have a range of possible outcomes (e.g., typically at the lowest level
>> of quantum mechanics), that God is constantly (or sporadically...)
>> rigging the dice. I don't regard this position as "good theology" --
>> but I don't really see it as "worse" science than the flat-out rejection
>> of empirical explanation of the Creationsists.
>
> Creationism is better than bad science because it is clearly no science
> at all,
By whose fiat?
> so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
> scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
> to determine how good the theology is).
Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue that
not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
they were perfect...
>
> But from the perspective of good or bad science, which is accessible to
> Larry and I, any science that says "well, it's all explicable in terms
> of physical properties except occasionally, something skips or jumps the
> usual laws, at times we can't say or in ways we can't describe", well,
> that's just ID... It's necessarily bad science.
Unlike ID, Miller's TEism doesn't argue that the skipping or jumping of the
usual laws is scientifically detectable; indeed, it claims that to the
outside world it looks exactly as if the usual laws have always continued
to apply.
John Wilkins
No, I'm saying that we can assess when creationism applies (i.e., not at
all) in science, while we can't say when TEism (of the "dabbler" kind)
does, scientifically.
>
> > because we know it's all wrong, not
> > that we know science is partly right or anything. TEism is less
> > desireable because it leaves most of science operating except in
> > arbitrary ways when it suits theology.
>
> The reference to Hume was to his proposition that science already
> operates in arbitrary ways when it suits us to do science, since it (or
> inference, at least) cannot be justified. Since when does science (or
> a "scientific perspective") determine when "we" *do* science, as
> opposed to when we do theology?
We *always* do science when we are taking a scientific perspective.
That's the point.
VoiceOfReason
I've been reading through this thread (interesting stuff from everyone)
and this seems as good a place to jump in as any. BTW, I'm a Christian
(non-YEC).
Larry, I understand your position that theistic evolution is not
science. I scanned your TE link, and I think I agree. To me, the
version of TE that says God tinkered in some undetectable way is a way
of "cheating" into a God-of-the-gaps position. It seems almost like a
contrived way of forcing God into certain areas. My own feelings are
slightly different - I acknowledge that God _may_ have tinkered in one
or more areas, but more because "I can't prove that he didn't" rather
than "He did, but we can't prove it." Maybe it's a subtle difference -
I guess I might say that I prefer to say his impact is "unknowable"
rather than "undetectable."
Moreover, though God _may_ have tinkered, I think the whole concept is
(or should be) irrelevant to religion. To me, it's a fool's errand to
attempt to define the overlap between the natural and supernatural
worlds, almost like the "how many angels can fit onto the head of a
pin" idea. To me, it misses the whole point of what faith is supposed
to be about.
I also agree with catshark/J. Pieret that anyone whose faith is
threatened by science must not have had a very strong faith to begin
with. I believe in the idea that "truth cannot contradict truth" - if
I learned something in science that contradicted or falsified some part
of my belief, then it's my belief that needs to be modified, not
science.
catshark
What does science care about theology? What business is it of
science's what theology people hold when they are not doing science?
(Everyone in this discussion agrees that you should not be doing
theology when doing science.)
> >
> > > because we know it's all wrong, not
> > > that we know science is partly right or anything. TEism is less
> > > desireable because it leaves most of science operating except in
> > > arbitrary ways when it suits theology.
> >
> > The reference to Hume was to his proposition that science already
> > operates in arbitrary ways when it suits us to do science, since it (or
> > inference, at least) cannot be justified. Since when does science (or
> > a "scientific perspective") determine when "we" *do* science, as
> > opposed to when we do theology?
>
> We *always* do science when we are taking a scientific perspective.
> That's the point.
At best, wouldn't that b the other way around? That we always take a
scientific perspective when we do science? Or are you saying that
science is a philosophy and that no one who doesn't adhere to
scientific perspectiveism can be a scientist?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Consistency we should expect of philosophies,
but perhaps not of philosophers.
- Neal C. Gillespie -
VoiceOfReason
Perhaps my answer was too subtle. I don't *need* faith - I *choose* to
have faith.
Larry Moran
> Larry Moran wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:46:53 +0100,
>> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Larry Moran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
>>>> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snippage>
>>>
>>>>> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
>>>>> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
>>>>> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you
>>> don't have a theological opinion...
>>
>> I'm mostly interested in criticizing his science
>
> Perhaps you can give an example of this then; all I have seen is your
> criticism of his position on TE, which is a theological, not a
> scientific, position. What do you criticise in Miller's science -
> bearing in mind that science is what scientists do when doing science?
Miller's science postulates a God who can intervene in nature to direct the
course of evolution. Miller's science allows for miracles that violate
the laws of physics and chemistry. That's bad science (but it's probably
good theology because so many theists agree with him.)
Your argument is based on the claim that "theistic evolution" has nothing
to do with science - it's only a theological position. With all due respect,
that's very naive. Theistic evolution impinges on science in exactly the
same way as "creation science" and "intelligent design." All three are
theological in origin but they all purport to explain the natural world
in one way or another by appealing to the supernatural.
BTW, I don't agree with you that "science is what scientists do when
doing science." That's a silly definition. In the context of discussions
like this one, science is a way of knowing. It's a "truth-seeking,
problem-solving, method of inquiry" that relies on empiricism, rationalism,
and skepticism
(Schafersman, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html).
Anyone can do science as long as you follow the method.
"If you spend any time spinning hypotheses, checking to see
whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else
we know, thinking of tests you can pose to substantiate or
deflate your hypotheses, you will find yourself doing science.
And as you come to practice this habit of thought more and
more you will get better and better at it."
Carl Sagan (1979)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/sagan_science.html
I know what you're going to say. You claim that Kenneth Miller is not
doing science when he talks about God so it's wrong to criticize his
"science." You, and others, claim that Miller is not mixing his
magisteria in "Finding Darwin's God." Miller is only talking about
theology.
I understand this argument and, like all arguments from intelligent
people, it contains a germ of truth. But only a germ. Anyone reading
Miller's book (or that of Fred Collins or Simon Conway Morris) can't
fail to appreciate that this is a book written by a scientist about
science. It uses science as a vehicle for supporting belief in God.
The purpose of the book is to reconcile science and religion and
Miller does NOT do that by restricting his theology to only those
parts of the so-called spiritual world that are outside of science
and scientific reasoning. Miller is not a deist.
When he says that God can influence the appearance of mutations, for
example, he is talking about science and not just theology. When he
says that God can perform miracles he's talking about a testable
hypothesis that can be rationally analyzed to see if it makes sense
based on what we know about the natural world. In other words, he's
talking science. The fact that he immediately says, "By definition,
the miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond
science" (p.239) is just a cop-out.
Miller believes in the efficacy of prayer. He believes that "God is
able to influence the thoughts and actions of individual human beings."
That's a testable hypothesis that falls into the science magisterium
(and it has been refuted).
Here's an example of Miller's belief about science ...
"Perhaps it was ... that God wanted to be known, loved,
and served. If that is true, He did so by devising a
universe that would make knowledge, love, and service,
meaningful. Seen in this way, evolution was much more
than an indirect pathway to get to you and me. By
choosing evolution as His way to fashion the living
world, He emphasized our material nature and our unity
with other forms of life. He made the world today
contingent upon the events of the past. He made our
choices matter, our actions genuine, our lives
important. In the final analysis, He used evolution
to set us free." (p. 253)
Now, Miller could have immediately proclaimed that this was a non-
scientific viewpoint that was based entirely on his personal upbringing
as a Catholic. He could have made sure that all his readers recognized
that his status as a scientist has nothing to do with the truth of
his religious pronouncements about science. He doesn't do that.
You and I know that Miller can excuse his excesses by claiming that
he is only talking about theology and not about science. This won't
be clear to most of his readers and that's one reason to make it
clear on talk.origins. But, I'm not convinced that Miller actually
believes in that excuse. I think he believes that science informs and
illuminates his theology to an extent that doesn't "prove" the
existence of God, but makes it highly probable. That's why he says,
"Understanding evolution and its description of the
processes that gave rise to the modern world is an
important part of knowing and appreciating God.
As a scientist and a Christian, that is exactly what
I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination
of faith and reason." (p. 267)
As a scientist, I will continue to proclaim that science offers no
support whatsoever for belief in supernatural beings and anyone who
says differently is abusing science.
>> but just because I
>> don't have a theological opinion doesn't mean I have to refrain from
>> poking fun at the theological opinion of others. According to your
>> logic, only theists could criticize Creationists - is that what you
>> meant to say?
>
> No. I have, and express, theological opinions - being a theist isn't a
> prerequisite to having theological opinions.
I think I understand. You are referring to opinions about theology (e.g.,
whether they are stupid or not). I was referring to a "theological
opinion" as a theological perspective or theological point of view.
Some people refer to atheism as a theological perspective and I was
trying to avoid that debate.
> Having said that, I agree with catshark's repeated point to you that one
> major difference between Creationists and TEists is that TEists (at least
> of Miller's stripe) don't claim that their theology has any scientific
> validity or indeed implication.
I disagree. The hallmark of theistic evolutionists, according to many
philosophers and scientists, is an interventionist God. That's why I quoted
Eugenie Scott in my essay and pointed out that she is not alone.
"Theistic Evolution (TE) is the theological view in which
God creates through the laws of nature. TEs accept all the
result of modern science, in anthropology and biology as
well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular,
it is acceptable to TEs that one species can give rise to
another; they accept descent with modification. TEs vary
in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene—some
believe God created the laws of nature and is allowing
events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs
see God as intervening at critical intervals during the
history of life (especially in the origin of humans)."
I even included a chart from Rev. Ted Peters that shows the level of
involvement of an interventionist God. In case you don't understand the
meaning of an "interventionist" God, it's one who meddles in the natural
world and ensures that the religion magisterium overlaps the science
magisterium. In other words, an interventionist God sets up conflict
between science and religion.
Almost all theistic evolutionists believe that God designed the universe
and most TE's believe that God deliberately created humans and endowed
them with a soul. To me that sounds an awful lot like a theology that
has scientific implications. Don't be confused by the fact that there
are a few people on talk.origins who claim to be theistic evolutionists
but who believe in a non-interventionist God. They seem to be the
exception that proves the rule.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
Don Cates <catHO...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) posted:
[snip]
>>Please explain, I don't think you are correct. I say that theistic
>>evolution is not science because it invokes the supernatural and
>>supernatural explanations are not scientific.
>
> Umm, I think that they agree with you there. 'Theistic evolution' is
> not a scientific position it is a theological position that is not
> inconsistant with 'scientific evolution'.
Yes it is. It conflicts with science because it postulates a God who
intervenes in the natural world. That's the point I want to
make. Anyone can be a theistic evolutionist if they want as long as
they agee it's a theology and it's not compatible with science.
Not only is there a conflict, in my opinion, but the use of the word
"evolution" to describe a theological position is bound to cause
confusion. I agree with Michael Ruse who criticizes use of the term
"theistic science" by saying, "... we should not use the word 'science'
for activities that go beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism,
however worthy such activities and their products may be."
Larry Moran
snex
if you cant tell the difference between X and nothing at all, then in
what way can you say X exists without redefining "exist?"
>
> >> >> > therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite specifically
> >> >> disclaims any possibility either of scientific confirmation or
> >> >> scientific
> >> >> falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological - claim;
> >> >> but
> >> >> why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do you
> >> >> reject Gould's NOMA concept?
> >> >
> >> > it is a claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the natural
> >> > world.
> >>
> >> An effect undetectable by scientific investigation.
> >
> > no, the effect is very detectable. the path of evolution of primates is
> > detectable. look in the mirror and you will see part of it.
>
> That's a result of the process; point me to where you can detect the
> intervention of a God in that process.
and thus you admit it had an effect IN THE NATURAL WORLD.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA
> >> concept?
> >
> > your question is irrelevant.
>
> I am not arguing for the truth of the TEist position - I am an atheist. My
> argument is that the TEist position is a theological, not a scientific,
> one. The issue of NOMA goes to the essence of that discussion.
the issue of NOMA is gould's, not mine or yours. as far as i know,
gould is not in this thread, so i see no reason to phrase the debate on
his terms. i am attacking YOUR position, not gould's, and you should
respond to MINE, not gould's.
snex
Robin Levett wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>
> > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
> > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
> > to determine how good the theology is).
>
> Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue that
> not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
> investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
> misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
> they were perfect...
>
young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
be taken as literal history. it is the people that try to reconcile it
with modern discovery that are twisting the words of the bible and
applying bad theology. instead of denying what the authors intended,
why dont you just admit that MAYBE a bunch of ancients just didnt know
what they were talking about?
<snip>
catshark
Larry Moran wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:48:49 GMT,
> Don Cates <catHO...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) posted:
[...]
Real life intrudes and I won't be able to respond to this or elsewhere
in the thread until Saturday or even Sunday and I want to read Larry's
revised article anyway. Carry on without me . . . smoke 'em if you got
'em . . .
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Sed nescio quo modo nihil tam absurde dici
potest quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.
- Cicero, De Divinatione
snex
that still doesnt answer the question. i can *choose* to drink bleach,
but i dont. being logically possible to perform an action doesnt
explain why i actually chose to perform that action.
UC
For what purpose? What use is it? What function does it serve?
Robin Levett
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:29:29 +0100,
> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Larry Moran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:46:53 +0100,
>>> Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Larry Moran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
>>>>> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snippage>
>>>>
>>>>>> Now you may think that is crummy theology. But then that is your
>>>>>> *theological* opinion that perhaps belongs right up there with Lenny
>>>>>> Flank's pizza delivery guy's.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a theological opinion, I'm an atheist.
>>>>
>>>> Then perhaps you can stop criticising Miller's theology? Being as you
>>>> don't have a theological opinion...
>>>
>>> I'm mostly interested in criticizing his science
>>
>> Perhaps you can give an example of this then; all I have seen is your
>> criticism of his position on TE, which is a theological, not a
>> scientific, position. What do you criticise in Miller's science -
>> bearing in mind that science is what scientists do when doing science?
>
> Miller's science postulates a God who can intervene in nature to direct
> the course of evolution.
A God accessible to scientific investigation? Whose interventions are
accessible to scientific investigation? In both cases, the answer is no.
So just what is the scientific nature of that postulate?
> Miller's science allows for miracles that violate
> the laws of physics and chemistry.
That may or may not be the case - but it isn't part of his TEism, which he
quite specifically, in the extracts you have produced, confines to the
working out of the laws of physics and chemistry.
> That's bad science (but it's probably
> good theology because so many theists agree with him.)
>
> Your argument is based on the claim that "theistic evolution" has nothing
> to do with science - it's only a theological position. With all due
> respect, that's very naive. Theistic evolution impinges on science in
> exactly the same way as "creation science" and "intelligent design." All
> three are theological in origin but they all purport to explain the
> natural world in one way or another by appealing to the supernatural.
Except that Miller does not. Exactly what scientific enquiry as to
evolutionary biology do you say that Miller would answer differently to
you, as a result of his TEism?
>
> BTW, I don't agree with you that "science is what scientists do when
> doing science." That's a silly definition. In the context of discussions
> like this one, science is a way of knowing. It's a "truth-seeking,
> problem-solving, method of inquiry" that relies on empiricism,
> rationalism, and skepticism
> (Schafersman, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html).
>
> Anyone can do science as long as you follow the method.
>
> "If you spend any time spinning hypotheses, checking to see
> whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else
> we know, thinking of tests you can pose to substantiate or
> deflate your hypotheses, you will find yourself doing science.
> And as you come to practice this habit of thought more and
> more you will get better and better at it."
>
> Carl Sagan (1979)
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/sagan_science.html
So when I sit down and analyse witness statements from both sides of a case
to try to determine the merits, I am doing science? I thought I was doing
law.
> I know what you're going to say. You claim that Kenneth Miller is not
> doing science when he talks about God so it's wrong to criticize his
> "science." You, and others, claim that Miller is not mixing his
> magisteria in "Finding Darwin's God." Miller is only talking about
> theology.
>
> I understand this argument and, like all arguments from intelligent
> people, it contains a germ of truth. But only a germ. Anyone reading
> Miller's book (or that of Fred Collins or Simon Conway Morris) can't
> fail to appreciate that this is a book written by a scientist about
> science. It uses science as a vehicle for supporting belief in God.
> The purpose of the book is to reconcile science and religion and
> Miller does NOT do that by restricting his theology to only those
> parts of the so-called spiritual world that are outside of science
> and scientific reasoning. Miller is not a deist.
>
> When he says that God can influence the appearance of mutations, for
> example, he is talking about science and not just theology.
He says that God can do so undetectably - in principle, not just in
practice. That means that that postulate is not testable; it is not
amenable to scientific investigation.
> When he
> says that God can perform miracles he's talking about a testable
> hypothesis that can be rationally analyzed to see if it makes sense
> based on what we know about the natural world. In other words, he's
> talking science. The fact that he immediately says, "By definition,
> the miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond
> science" (p.239) is just a cop-out.
I don't claim to have read the book, just the extracts that you have
produced to argue your point. Is he talking here about his God's
intervention in the evolution of life on earth - his TEism?
>
> Miller believes in the efficacy of prayer. He believes that "God is
> able to influence the thoughts and actions of individual human beings."
> That's a testable hypothesis that falls into the science magisterium
> (and it has been refuted).
...and is not relevant to his TEism.
The sincerity with which Miller holds a position - and I'd be a little more
careful before accusing him of flat-out lying, as you are - is entirely
irrelevant to the question of whether that position is theology or science.
In case you hadn't noticed, I am an atheist. I do not accept his claim
that a God - any God - exists, and a fortiori do not accept his claims of
divine intervention. That doesn't mean that I must of necessity call his
position Creationist, as you are doing.
> That's why he says,
>
> "Understanding evolution and its description of the
> processes that gave rise to the modern world is an
> important part of knowing and appreciating God.
> As a scientist and a Christian, that is exactly what
> I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination
> of faith and reason." (p. 267)
>
> As a scientist, I will continue to proclaim that science offers no
> support whatsoever for belief in supernatural beings and anyone who
> says differently is abusing science.
As a non-scientist (or not, depending on whether we accept your adopted
definition above) I think I agree with the first part of that proposition.
I don't entirely agree with the second part.
I am tentative because of your phrasing, which I assume was careful.
I agree that science offers no evidence for the existence of supernatural
beings; and that anyone who says differently is mistaken. Whether
science's findings offer support for a belief in supernatural beings
depends on your theology and inter alia whether or not you take the view
that absence of evidence ie evidence of absence.
>>> but just because I
>>> don't have a theological opinion doesn't mean I have to refrain from
>>> poking fun at the theological opinion of others. According to your
>>> logic, only theists could criticize Creationists - is that what you
>>> meant to say?
>>
>> No. I have, and express, theological opinions - being a theist isn't a
>> prerequisite to having theological opinions.
>
> I think I understand. You are referring to opinions about theology (e.g.,
> whether they are stupid or not).
Yes; although I would (sometimes) be less pejorative.
> I was referring to a "theological
> opinion" as a theological perspective or theological point of view.
> Some people refer to atheism as a theological perspective and I was
> trying to avoid that debate.
I don't, and no need, in that order.
>> Having said that, I agree with catshark's repeated point to you that one
>> major difference between Creationists and TEists is that TEists (at least
>> of Miller's stripe) don't claim that their theology has any scientific
>> validity or indeed implication.
>
> I disagree. The hallmark of theistic evolutionists, according to many
> philosophers and scientists, is an interventionist God. That's why I
> quoted Eugenie Scott in my essay and pointed out that she is not alone.
>
> "Theistic Evolution (TE) is the theological view in which
> God creates through the laws of nature. TEs accept all the
> result of modern science, in anthropology and biology as
> well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular,
> it is acceptable to TEs that one species can give rise to
> another; they accept descent with modification. TEs vary
> in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene—some
> believe God created the laws of nature and is allowing
> events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs
> see God as intervening at critical intervals during the
> history of life (especially in the origin of humans)."
>
> I even included a chart from Rev. Ted Peters that shows the level of
> involvement of an interventionist God. In case you don't understand the
> meaning of an "interventionist" God, it's one who meddles in the natural
> world and ensures that the religion magisterium overlaps the science
> magisterium. In other words, an interventionist God sets up conflict
> between science and religion.
I take the point, and will read the revised version of your essay. The
particular characteristic of Miller's interventionist God is that His
interventions are explicitly undetectable - non-amenable to scientific
investigation. That is how he avoids that conflict.
I think that that theology is misguided, in that any undetectable
intervention cannot have made any difference to the natural world, so the
theology requiring an interventionist God is left high and dry (modulo
Stanley's explanation); but that doesn't mean that the position is
scientific.
> Almost all theistic evolutionists believe that God designed the universe
> and most TE's believe that God deliberately created humans and endowed
> them with a soul. To me that sounds an awful lot like a theology that
> has scientific implications.
So far as ensoulment is concerned, you'd have to convince me that a soul is
amenable to scientific investigation before I'd accept that it has any
scientific implications. As to deliberate creation of humans, I'd agree
that there are contradictions between that view and, say, Gould's that
"rerunning the tape" would not inevitably produce the world we see now. I
don't however believe that "most TEs" disagree with the generally accepted
scientific account of the evolution of man at any point. That may mean
that there is a contradiction between their theological and their
scientific positions, but does not mean that their theological position is
any less a theological one.
> Don't be confused by the fact that there
> are a few people on talk.origins who claim to be theistic evolutionists
> but who believe in a non-interventionist God.
I'm not; Stanley believes in an interventionist God, and his position on
TEism coincides with (my understanding of) Miller's. His argument is that
God's intervention take the form of nature - again, while I may disagree
with the theology involved, I have little doubt that theology is what it
is.
> They seem to be the
> exception that proves the rule.
By which you mean they are not really TEists?
Robin Levett
>
> Robin Levett wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
>> > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
>> > to determine how good the theology is).
>>
>> Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue
>> that not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
>> investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
>> misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
>> they were perfect...
>>
>
> young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
> sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
> be taken as literal history.
Really? How good is your Hebrew? In which synagogue did you become bar
Mitzvah?
> it is the people that try to reconcile it
> with modern discovery that are twisting the words of the bible and
> applying bad theology. instead of denying what the authors intended,
> why dont you just admit that MAYBE a bunch of ancients just didnt know
> what they were talking about?
>
> <snip>
Do you understand the implications of my claim to atheism?
Robin Levett
Scientifically, you cannot; theologically...
>
>>
>> >> >> > therefore, it is religion overstepping its bounds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is not a scientific claim. It is a claim which quite
>> >> >> specifically disclaims any possibility either of scientific
>> >> >> confirmation or scientific
>> >> >> falsification. It is certainly a religious - a theological -
>> >> >> claim; but
>> >> >> why do you say that it is "religion overstepping its bounds"? Do
>> >> >> you reject Gould's NOMA concept?
>> >> >
>> >> > it is a claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the
>> >> > natural world.
>> >>
>> >> An effect undetectable by scientific investigation.
>> >
>> > no, the effect is very detectable. the path of evolution of primates is
>> > detectable. look in the mirror and you will see part of it.
>>
>> That's a result of the process; point me to where you can detect the
>> intervention of a God in that process.
>
> and thus you admit it had an effect IN THE NATURAL WORLD.
You misunderstand me on a number of levels.
I am neither describing nor defending my own theology - as I am an atheist,
that would take very little time. I do not argue that the theology I
describe, proposed by Miller and Stanley Friesen, is true, accurate or
self-consistent; I simply argue that it is theology, not science.
I agree that orthodox Christian theology requires the intervention of God in
the path of evolution of primates to ensure the evolution of mankind.
Stanley's position argues for an intervention that is indistinguishable
from the working out of physical and chemical processes as we understand
them; he says that God's intervention *is* that working out of physical and
chemical processes.
You can agree or disagree with that position - but the issue is not your (or
my) agreement or disagreement, but whether that is a theological or
scientific one. If the position is that the intervention is not
scientifically detectable it is difficult to see how it is scientific,
except in the same sense that baldness is a hair colour.
>> >> Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA
>> >> concept?
>> >
>> > your question is irrelevant.
>>
>> I am not arguing for the truth of the TEist position - I am an atheist.
>> My argument is that the TEist position is a theological, not a
>> scientific,
>> one. The issue of NOMA goes to the essence of that discussion.
>
> the issue of NOMA is gould's, not mine or yours. as far as i know,
> gould is not in this thread, so i see no reason to phrase the debate on
> his terms. i am attacking YOUR position, not gould's, and you should
> respond to MINE, not gould's.
Perhaps you can take a stab at telling me what you think my position
actually is before telling me that NOMA is irrelevant to it.
snex
Robin Levett wrote:
> snex wrote:
>
> >
> > Robin Levett wrote:
> >> John Wilkins wrote:
> >>
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
> >> > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
> >> > to determine how good the theology is).
> >>
> >> Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue
> >> that not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
> >> investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
> >> misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
> >> they were perfect...
> >>
> >
> > young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
> > sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
> > be taken as literal history.
>
> Really? How good is your Hebrew? In which synagogue did you become bar
> Mitzvah?
what does hebrew have to do with it? the book was translated by experts
in hebrew - several times so that i can compare and contrast. in not
one instance does the tone of the book appear to be parable or
non-literal. all ancient societies had creation myths, and they were
all meant to be taken literally, and were done so. genesis is no
different.
UC
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they did not understand
the difference between 'mythology' and 'theology'.
snex
"theologically" you can say anything you want. it is completely
unrestrained and therefore useless. when you argue that there is some
part of philosophy where theological "reasoning" can be used, you
implicitly allow it to impose upon science if it so desires. you are
trying to say that science can only examine natural things, and
theology is the compliment to science in that it can only examine
supernatural things. but those that hold to theology do not agree with
you. to a theologian, there is no meaningful distinction between
"natural" and "supernatural." their gods exist in the same reality than
we inhabit, and therefore can choose to affect that reality - whether
by detectable methods and undetectable methods.
you think that because science is careful to understand its own
limitations that theology must do the same. theology is not limited by
any rules of standards of evidence or even honesty. theology can do and
say whatever it wants, so when you give it any credence at all, you
lose all grounds to later critisize it when it oversteps what you think
are its bounds.
claiming that gods have observable effects on the natural world -
whether or not the supernatural causes of those effects can be detected
- is religion imposing on science. either the world operates under
natural laws or it is tinkered with from time to time. science is an
endeavor to seek the causes for observed effects. when somebody posits
a supernatural cause (god's tinkering) for an observed effect (the
mutation that led to brain growth in humans), they are phrasing their
beliefs in scientific terms. they are saying that there is some agent
that ACTUALLY caused this mutation, and without that agent, such a
mutation would not have happened.
>
> >> >> Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA
> >> >> concept?
> >> >
> >> > your question is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> I am not arguing for the truth of the TEist position - I am an atheist.
> >> My argument is that the TEist position is a theological, not a
> >> scientific,
> >> one. The issue of NOMA goes to the essence of that discussion.
> >
> > the issue of NOMA is gould's, not mine or yours. as far as i know,
> > gould is not in this thread, so i see no reason to phrase the debate on
> > his terms. i am attacking YOUR position, not gould's, and you should
> > respond to MINE, not gould's.
>
> Perhaps you can take a stab at telling me what you think my position
> actually is before telling me that NOMA is irrelevant to it.
ive been responding to your position this entire time.
VoiceOfReason
snex wrote:
> Robin Levett wrote:
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
> > > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
> > > to determine how good the theology is).
> >
> > Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue that
> > not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
> > investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
> > misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
> > they were perfect...
> >
>
> young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
> sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
> be taken as literal history. it is the people that try to reconcile it
> with modern discovery that are twisting the words of the bible and
> applying bad theology.
That would be interesting news to the vast majority of Christians who
don't take Genesis literally. :-)
Robin Levett
Answer me this; do I gave theology any credence?
If the effect is observable then the intervention is detectable.
>> >> >> Now would you please answer my question; do you reject Gould's NOMA
>> >> >> concept?
>> >> >
>> >> > your question is irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> I am not arguing for the truth of the TEist position - I am an
>> >> atheist. My argument is that the TEist position is a theological, not
>> >> a scientific,
>> >> one. The issue of NOMA goes to the essence of that discussion.
>> >
>> > the issue of NOMA is gould's, not mine or yours. as far as i know,
>> > gould is not in this thread, so i see no reason to phrase the debate on
>> > his terms. i am attacking YOUR position, not gould's, and you should
>> > respond to MINE, not gould's.
>>
>> Perhaps you can take a stab at telling me what you think my position
>> actually is before telling me that NOMA is irrelevant to it.
>
> ive been responding to your position this entire time.
That would appear to be not entirely the case. Try again.
VoiceOfReason
snex wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > snex wrote:
> > > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > > UC wrote:
> > > > > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cofounder of the Discovery Institute
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
> > > > > > > organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
> > > > > > > exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
> > > > > > > Christian belief.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only for those with very weak faith.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you need a faith FOR?
> > > >
> > > > Because I choose to have faith.
> > >
> > > you didnt answer the question.
> >
> > Perhaps my answer was too subtle. I don't *need* faith - I *choose* to
> > have faith.
>
> that still doesnt answer the question.
Of course it does.
Robin Levett
>
> Robin Levett wrote:
>> snex wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Robin Levett wrote:
>> >> John Wilkins wrote:
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
>> >> > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and
>> >> > others to determine how good the theology is).
>> >>
>> >> Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue
>> >> that not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
>> >> investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
>> >> misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody
>> >> said they were perfect...
>> >>
>> >
>> > young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
>> > sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
>> > be taken as literal history.
>>
>> Really? How good is your Hebrew? In which synagogue did you become bar
>> Mitzvah?
>
> what does hebrew have to do with it? the book was translated by experts
> in hebrew - several times so that i can compare and contrast. in not
> one instance does the tone of the book appear to be parable or
> non-literal.
Without Hebrew or a grounding in the Jewish scriptural context of the books
that Christianity has taken for its Old Testament, what basis do you have
for making that claim?
> all ancient societies had creation myths, and they were
> all meant to be taken literally, and were done so. genesis is no
> different.
>
>>
>> > it is the people that try to reconcile it
>> > with modern discovery that are twisting the words of the bible and
>> > applying bad theology.
Modern discovery? Doesn't that fact that the early Church Fathers were
writing that literal historical interpretations of Genesis must yield to
scientific knowledge mean anything?
>> > instead of denying what the authors intended,
>> > why dont you just admit that MAYBE a bunch of ancients just didnt know
>> > what they were talking about?
>> >
>> > <snip>
>>
>> Do you understand the implications of my claim to atheism?
Any answer to this?
VoiceOfReason
Faith is belief, trust or confidence often based on a transpersonal
relationship with God, a higher power, elements of nature and/or a
perception of the human race as a whole. Faith can be placed in a
person, inanimate object, state of affairs, proposition or body of
propositions such as a religious credo. In each case, faith transcends
what can be proven scientifically and sometimes exceeds what can be
objectively defined. Faith can mean believing unconditionally. It can
be acceptance of something that one has been told by one who is
considered trustworthy. Faith, by its very nature, requires belief
outside of known fact. Faith is formed through instinct, intuition,
meditation, communing with nature, prayer, or perceived usefulness of a
belief system.
snex
and thus the sophistry with you begins. notice how this person who
claims to be reasonable splits the thesis sentence from the rest my
paragraph, responds to it as if it were a bare assertion with his own
bare assertion, and then ignores the rest of the paragraph that shows
*why* my thesis sentence is more than a bare assertion.
snex
VoiceOfReason wrote:
> snex wrote:
> > Robin Levett wrote:
> > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
> > > > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
> > > > to determine how good the theology is).
> > >
> > > Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue that
> > > not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
> > > investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
> > > misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
> > > they were perfect...
> > >
> >
> > young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
> > sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
> > be taken as literal history. it is the people that try to reconcile it
> > with modern discovery that are twisting the words of the bible and
> > applying bad theology.
>
> That would be interesting news to the vast majority of Christians who
> don't take Genesis literally. :-)
they dont take it literally because they recognize that it would be
stupid to believe such things. however, the truth value of a literal
interpretation says nothing whatsoever about how the authors originally
intended it.
VoiceOfReason
I ignored the rest of the paragraph because it was inane. Jeez you get
spun up easily...
Ferrous Patella
[...]
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they did not understand
> the difference between 'mythology' and 'theology'.
There is a difference?
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Mark Isaak
> Robin Levett wrote:
>> snex wrote:
>> >
>> > young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
>> > sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
>> > be taken as literal history.
>>
>> Really? How good is your Hebrew? In which synagogue did you become bar
>> Mitzvah?
>
> what does hebrew have to do with it? the book was translated by experts
> in hebrew - several times so that i can compare and contrast. in not
> one instance does the tone of the book appear to be parable or
> non-literal. all ancient societies had creation myths, and they were
> all meant to be taken literally, and were done so. genesis is no
> different.
As you note, Genesis is myth. But myth does not imply "meant to be taken
literally." It implies, roughly, "meant to be taken however you want to
take it."
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
snex
if by "inane" you mean "demonstrates that the logical possibility of
choosing an event is not an explanation for choosing that event."
seriously, if you arent willing to defend your theo-babble, you should
just keep it to yourself.
snex
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:25:50 -0700, snex wrote:
>
> > Robin Levett wrote:
> >> snex wrote:
> >> >
> >> > young earth creationists are the only people NOT misinterpreting their
> >> > sources. the book of genesis was clearly written in a style that is to
> >> > be taken as literal history.
> >>
> >> Really? How good is your Hebrew? In which synagogue did you become bar
> >> Mitzvah?
> >
> > what does hebrew have to do with it? the book was translated by experts
> > in hebrew - several times so that i can compare and contrast. in not
> > one instance does the tone of the book appear to be parable or
> > non-literal. all ancient societies had creation myths, and they were
> > all meant to be taken literally, and were done so. genesis is no
> > different.
>
> As you note, Genesis is myth. But myth does not imply "meant to be taken
> literally." It implies, roughly, "meant to be taken however you want to
> take it."
as a 1st century AD jew living in judea, how would you have taken the
creation story of genesis?
UC
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:uranium-11571321...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by UC:
> [...]
> > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they did not understand
> > the difference between 'mythology' and 'theology'.
> [...]
> There is a difference?
Wewll, yes, that's why they have separate words...they are different
things...just like 'dog' and 'wolf'.
VoiceOfReason
By "inane" I mean silly, asinine, mindless, frivolous, daft, etc.
> "demonstrates that the logical possibility of
When you demonstrate the capability to be logical, get back to us.
> choosing an event is not an explanation for choosing that event."
The issue was choosing versus needing. Do keep up.
> seriously, if you arent willing to defend your theo-babble,
Who needs to defend anything, especially to someone like you?
> you should
> just keep it to yourself.
You know, if you weren't such a rabid anti-theist, you wouldn't have so
many episodes of tightened-sphincter syndrome.
snex
original question was: "What do you need a faith FOR?"
your replies: "Because I choose to have faith." "I don't *need* faith -
I *choose* to
have faith."
the intent of UC's question was clearly to determine the reasons you
accept and use faith. you have not answered him, yet you throw your
faith around and expect that people should respect it. if you arent
prepared to answer questions like UC's, then stop throwing crybaby fits
when anybody questions the veracity of your moniker.
John Wilkins
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
> > news:uranium-11571321...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by UC:
> > [...]
> > > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they did not understand
> > > the difference between 'mythology' and 'theology'.
> > [...]
> > There is a difference?
>
> Wewll, yes, that's why they have separate words...they are different
> things...just like 'dog' and 'wolf'.
Or "bird" and "dinosaur" :-)
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
VoiceOfReason
I did answer him, and expanded on my original answer. Let's not fib,
shall we?
> yet you throw your
> faith around
No, *you've* been throwing my faith around. See above re: rabid
anti-theist.
> and expect that people should respect it.
I think people should show basic respect to others views, even if they
don't understand them. In that we obviously differ.
> if you arent
> prepared to answer questions like UC's,
See above re: Let's not fib.
> then stop throwing crybaby fits
If you'll read this thread *objectively* you'll note I'm not the one
having fits.
> when anybody questions the veracity of your moniker.
Yeah, that must be it. :-D
UC
John Wilkins wrote:
> UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ferrous Patella wrote:
> > > news:uranium-11571321...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by UC:
> > > [...]
> > > > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they did not understand
> > > > the difference between 'mythology' and 'theology'.
> > > [...]
> > > There is a difference?
> >
> > Wewll, yes, that's why they have separate words...they are different
> > things...just like 'dog' and 'wolf'.
>
> Or "bird" and "dinosaur" :-)
RIGHT!
UC
snex wrote:
>
> original question was: "What do you need a faith FOR?"
> your replies: "Because I choose to have faith." "I don't *need* faith -
> I *choose* to
> have faith."
>
> the intent of UC's question was clearly to determine the reasons you
> accept and use faith. you have not answered him, yet you throw your
> faith around and expect that people should respect it. if you arent
> prepared to answer questions like UC's, then stop throwing crybaby fits
> when anybody questions the veracity of your moniker.
It's like answering "Why do you need a Mercedes?" with "I choose to own
a Mercedes" instead of "I need to get around". There is no function
that you need a deity for. None. It serves no purpose. None.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
...
> > Well that is not the usual "theistic evolution" position, it's just the
> > standard view of God as creator (by standard, I mean standard in
> > catholic/orthodox theological traditions, not standard in evangelical
> > traditions). As I recall, Aquinas said something similar. I think of
> > that as God tilting the pinball machine...
>
> Is that position not science - in the sense of being scientifically
> investigable? That is (to clarify) the sense I have been using all along -
> the sense that means that string "theory" is not science, and will not
> become science until it makes empirically investigable claims.
Not exactly. String theory at least is an explanation of physics, gained
the hard way, and the lack of empirically testable consequences (so far)
doesn't mean it is not part of the scientific enterprise, as it is a
theory in development, with formal consequences that might yet be
disconfirmed - if, say, one consequence of that theory is that the Higgs
boson failed to exist, and it was found. But I agree that string theory
is a formal exercise rather than a research program.
But "dabbler" TEism (the kind Michael *doesn't* hold) is entirely
arbitrary, and has neither a formal structure (we cannot do an
in-principle prediction of the kinds of things God intervenes in), nor
empirical consequences (no amount of evidence will tell us when he has).
>
> Either that position is that God set up the initial conditions such that
> humanity as we know it was the inevitable outcome - which is scientifically
> investigable, and runs into difficulties with contingency; or that while
> the initial conditions were not so set up, there is a general bias to the
> universe that skews the outcomes of those initial conditions - which is
> again amenable to scientific investigation.
Agree with both.
>
> I am taking it that according to orthodox Christian tradition humanity as it
> now exists (or is becoming) is the apex (no pun intended) of creation - and
> that according to TEism evolution is the method He chose to make Man in His
> image and all that.
Yes, although it then sets up a problem - could God predict the outcome?
As we discussed earlier, that is questionable. Maybe God is Max Tegmark,
and just wanted Self-Aware-Systems...
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> >> > the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting
> >> > a novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> >> > biology, but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> >> > imagination. For at least they don't say that only some science is
> >> > acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
> >>
> >> And despite my "credo" above, there are indeed those who use the term
> >> "theistic evolution" (and equivalent attitudes about history, cosmo-
> >> logy, physics, etc.) along the line you reject above as "worse science
> >> than the whole creationist imagination". I agree that such attitudes
> >> are pretty bad, though I'm not _quite_ so sure that the position is
> >> really "worse science" than typical fundie Creationism. Such folks
> >> seem to take comfort in the notion that, when the empirical facts
> >> have a range of possible outcomes (e.g., typically at the lowest level
> >> of quantum mechanics), that God is constantly (or sporadically...)
> >> rigging the dice. I don't regard this position as "good theology" --
> >> but I don't really see it as "worse" science than the flat-out rejection
> >> of empirical explanation of the Creationsists.
> >
> > Creationism is better than bad science because it is clearly no science
> > at all,
>
> By whose fiat?
The canons of scientific behaviour, progress, process and practice.
>
> > so the issue of which bits are theological and which bits are
> > scientific don't arise. It's all theology (I leave it to you and others
> > to determine how good the theology is).
>
> Not according to those who hold to scientific creationism; they argue that
> not only is their account of history true, it is scientifically
> investigable. They are wrong, which makes it bad science, and they
> misinterpret their sources, which is bad theology, but hey, nobody said
> they were perfect...
Nothing they do is either derived from science or formally similar to
it. They do science like I paint like Rembrandt; i.e., not at all.
>
> >
> > But from the perspective of good or bad science, which is accessible to
> > Larry and I, any science that says "well, it's all explicable in terms
> > of physical properties except occasionally, something skips or jumps the
> > usual laws, at times we can't say or in ways we can't describe", well,
> > that's just ID... It's necessarily bad science.
>
> Unlike ID, Miller's TEism doesn't argue that the skipping or jumping of the
> usual laws is scientifically detectable; indeed, it claims that to the
> outside world it looks exactly as if the usual laws have always continued
> to apply.
Then the intervention of God is not a physical intervention, because
biases in the physical leave traces. It must, ergo, be something more
like the option I mentioned before - that God's intervention lies in
uphold all physical processes.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > > catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > > > > Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robin Levett <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Larry Moran wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0400,
> > > > > > > >> > catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> <snippage>
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down
> > > > > > and rigs the dice or fixes the football game, as well as
> > > > > > occasionally inserting a novel genetic sequence without the
> > > > > > usual processes of chemistry and biology, but this is even worse
> > > > > > science than the whole creationist imagination.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what kind of theology is it?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't matter from the scientific perspective. It might be admirable
> > > > and excellent theology in a given tradition (and it clearly is) - it's
> > > > still confused science.
> > > > >
> > > > > > For at least they don't say that only some science is
> > > > > > acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > And when did the results of science get to be demonstrably
> > > > > coextensive with reality? Who snuck that in behind Hume's back?
> > > > > Or, absent that, why does saying that science cannot know
> > > > > something the same as saying it is "all wrong"?
> > > >
> > > > This looks like a non sequitur to me. I'm saying that creationism is
> > > > better from a scientific perspective
> > >
> > > What is science doing dabbling in theology? What "scientific
> > > perspective" are you talking about? Are you denying *methodological*
> > > naturalism?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that we can assess when creationism applies (i.e., not at
> > all) in science, while we can't say when TEism (of the "dabbler" kind)
> > does, scientifically.
>
> What does science care about theology? What business is it of
> science's what theology people hold when they are not doing science?
> (Everyone in this discussion agrees that you should not be doing
> theology when doing science.)
I and it doesn't. But *as science* "dabbler" TEism is bad science.
>
> > >
> > > > because we know it's all wrong, not
> > > > that we know science is partly right or anything. TEism is less
> > > > desireable because it leaves most of science operating except in
> > > > arbitrary ways when it suits theology.
> > >
> > > The reference to Hume was to his proposition that science already
> > > operates in arbitrary ways when it suits us to do science, since it (or
> > > inference, at least) cannot be justified. Since when does science (or
> > > a "scientific perspective") determine when "we" *do* science, as
> > > opposed to when we do theology?
> >
> > We *always* do science when we are taking a scientific perspective.
> > That's the point.
>
> At best, wouldn't that b the other way around? That we always take a
> scientific perspective when we do science? Or are you saying that
> science is a philosophy and that no one who doesn't adhere to
> scientific perspectiveism can be a scientist?
Not quite. I am saying that the scientific perspective (while neither a
worldview nor a philosophy) just *is* the doing of science, no matter
whether one is a scientist or an amateur.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
...
> > Basically, the idea that God intervenes in variation is indefensible.
> > Either God intervenes in *everything*, in which case you have no such
> > position as "theistic evolution", just "evolution" (just as there is no
> > "theistic gravitation" or "theistic chemistry"), or he is not
> > intervening in *anything*. To say otherwise is indeed bad science.
>
> I am not quite sure how an agnostic can make that argument. As I understand
> that position, inter alia the existence of a God is not amenable to
> scientific investigation. If His actions *are* amenable to scientific
> investigation, then surely so must be his existence...
I can "take the stance" of a theist for consistency's sake. If
God/Allah/Vishnu is involved in the ordinary physical processes of the
world and is not detectable, then the invocation of G/A/V does *no
explanatory work whatsoever* in *science*.
>
> > Now it is logically possible that occasionally God comes down and rigs
> > the dice or fixes the football game, as well as occasionally inserting a
> > novel genetic sequence without the usual processes of chemistry and
> > biology,
>
> That latter at least is IDC, not TEism as Miller is represented as arguing
> it.
Yes, but it applies also to the claim (of Asa Gray, f'rinstance) that
God guided variation. To do that, he has to ensure the deliberate
insertion of the required DNA sequences.
>
> > but this is even worse science than the whole creationist
> > imagination.
>
> True.
>
> > For at least they don't say that only some science is
> > acceptable - they say it is all wrong.
snex
of course, i understand your question, but VoiceOfUnreason insists that
he has already supplied the answer. any protestations to the contrary,
even by the original asker, are unlikely to sway him.
Don Cates
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) posted:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:48:49 GMT,
>Don Cates <catHO...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
>> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) posted:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Please explain, I don't think you are correct. I say that theistic
>>>evolution is not science because it invokes the supernatural and
>>>supernatural explanations are not scientific.
>>
>> Umm, I think that they agree with you there. 'Theistic evolution' is
>> not a scientific position it is a theological position that is not
>> inconsistant with 'scientific evolution'.
>
>Yes it is. It conflicts with science because it postulates a God who
>intervenes in the natural world. That's the point I want to
>make. Anyone can be a theistic evolutionist if they want as long as
>they agee it's a theology and it's not compatible with science.
>
Okay, 'not inconsistant with the *results* of 'scientific evolution''.
Better?
I think there is a semantics problem. You state, "I say that theistic
evolution is not science because it invokes the supernatural and
supernatural explanations are not scientific." as if it contradicted
TE's beliefs. I think it is clear that they agree 100% with that
statement. The conflict arises in the discussion as to whether any of
their particular supernatural involkations can truely be completely
divorced from their science. I think I agree with you that it cannot
be done though it is clear to me that it can be operationally done, ie
they can do good science in spite of the inherent (ignored) conflict.
>Not only is there a conflict, in my opinion, but the use of the word
>"evolution" to describe a theological position is bound to cause
>confusion. I agree with Michael Ruse who criticizes use of the term
>"theistic science" by saying, "... we should not use the word 'science'
>for activities that go beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism,
>however worthy such activities and their products may be."
>
Yes, it was a poorly thought out and unfortunate response to the
creationist's absolutist science/religion dicotomy.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)