Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 91 (464147)
04-23-2008 5:50 PM


To clarify, let's start with Christians that believe God created the universe with the intent for man to evolve.
I think such theistic evos are clearly IDers. They believe an Intelligent Designer (God) created the universe, and they have accepted teleological thinking in believing such a creation occured with the intent to create/evolve mankind.
I think other theistic evos are likewise IDers, whether they realize or not, because they believe there is an Intelligent Force behind the creation and existence of the universe, but perhaps they are not teleological and think, for example, God perhaps didn't even know what would happen.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Per Admins idea in message 3, final sentence/paragraph "hidden".

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Granny Magda, posted 04-24-2008 9:14 PM randman has not replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2008 1:50 AM randman has not replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2008 8:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 22 by bluegenes, posted 05-29-2008 4:52 AM randman has replied
 Message 32 by Codegate, posted 05-29-2008 2:15 PM randman has replied
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2008 7:49 PM randman has replied
 Message 63 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-31-2008 12:06 AM randman has not replied
 Message 69 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2008 3:01 PM randman has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 91 (464197)
04-23-2008 9:22 PM


I kind of like this topic - Maybe it will get promoted
Randman just started a 4 week suspension. Maybe that makes it an especially good time to promote this topic.
Going to let it age a bit first.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 04-24-2008 8:25 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 91 (464232)
04-24-2008 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
04-23-2008 9:22 PM


Re: I kind of like this topic - Maybe it will get promoted
I liked this topic proposal a lot up until the last paragraph where Randman made clear he wants to discuss the deficiencies of those adhering to certain ideas rather than the ideas themselves. We could hide the last paragraph and promote it. What do you think?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-23-2008 9:22 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 91 (464328)
04-24-2008 8:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Per Admin's idea, the final sentence/paragraph of message 1 was "hidden".
I didn't think this topic belonged in the Intelligent Design forum, in the "Science" group of forum. "Faith and Belief" seemed the best place to me.
I would hope that this topic becomes something greater than just a "jump on Randman" thing. How about your ideas about the relationship between intelligent design and theistic evolution?
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 5 of 91 (464331)
04-24-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
04-23-2008 5:50 PM


A Clear Divide
I think that Theistic Evolution and ID have similarities, as randman has noted, but there is a major gulf between the two philosophies.
TE's believe that natural processes such as the big bang, stellar and planetary formation and biological evolution are sufficient to explain the presence of life on Earth, without recourse to direct interference by God, after the beginning of the universe.
ID on the other hand, claims not only that God, ahem, an intelligent designer has directly intervened with biological evolution, but that they can actually point to several instances where this has occurred. Indeed, this is the crux of the whole ID movement.
This is a clear divide between the two ideas and I don't see how randman is going to be able to bridge it. At least TE's have the decency to admit that they are talking about God.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:50 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2008 3:24 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 91 (464342)
04-24-2008 10:13 PM


Well Of Course Not
The word "Creationist" doesn't mean someone who belives in a Creator of the universe, but rather someone who drones out stupid pseudoscientific rubbish.
To quote from Of Pandas And People, as it was first drafted:
quote:
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Likewise, the words "Intelligent Design proponent" don't mean someone who belives in an Intelligent Designer of the universe, but rather someone who drones out stupid pseudoscientific rubbish.
To quote from Of Pandas And People, as it was finally published:
quote:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 91 (464363)
04-25-2008 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
04-23-2008 5:50 PM


William Dembski once explicitly stated that ID "is no friend of theistic evolution". Obviously he saw something in ID that excludes theistic evolution.
YEC organisations - although taking a position that IS unambiguously accepted within ID have also taken to criticising ID. As we saw recently "Harun Yaha" even calls ID satanic. Why would someone who calls ID satanic want to call themselves an IDer ?
The point is that the term "IDer" carries a strong implication of agreement with the ID movement. Theistic evolutionists in general do NOT agree with the ID movements goals (less so than even YECs) nor would they agree with the majority of what the ID movement publishes. Even if the ID movement were to explicitly retract or deny Dembski's statement, why would a theistic evolutionist want something they see as false to be given an unearned position in the classroom ?
So I think that theistic evolutionists are right to reject the term "IDer"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:50 PM randman has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 8 of 91 (464365)
04-25-2008 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Granny Magda
04-24-2008 9:14 PM


Re: A Clear Divide
I agree with your general assessment, Granny (Message 5). My experience is that theistic evolutionists such as Ken Miller see god's handiwork in extremely subtle ways. Miller, for example, places god in the realm of quantum mechanics. Since QM is an exercise in probability, he has god's actions happening on probabilistic levels, tipping the scales in certain directions rather than dramatic, Spielbergian zap-poofing.
ID, on the other hand, has a much more dramatic claim about what god does. Unlike TE which says that god makes certain outcomes likely (priming the pump, so to speak), ID says that god comes in and forces things.
Take the flagellum. TE would say that god made it possible for the chemical reactions to happen and guided selection pressures that would naturally result in the evolution of a flagellum. ID would say that god had to step in a personally create a flagellum ex nihilo. Not an earth shaking result, but something that couldn't happen at all without god coming in and making it happen.
In essence, TE has god as a naturalist. ID has god as an engineer.
Now, I do see that there is some connection between the two. F'rinstnace, the Catholic church has no problem with evolution so long as it doesn't speak to the intellect. That is, they have no issues with humans evolving from other species. Where the draw the line is with humans getting smart through natural methods: That they reserve to a direct act of god. Does that make the Catholic position TE or ID? Well, it certainly isn't on the level of, say, Michael Behe, but it still requires some "acts of god."
Ken Miller, by the way, is Catholic.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Granny Magda, posted 04-24-2008 9:14 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Granny Magda, posted 04-26-2008 12:44 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-26-2008 3:36 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 91 (464411)
04-25-2008 12:55 PM


We could go so far as to say that Theistic Evolutionists are creationists, because they believe that god uses evolution to create lifeforms.
But why cloud the issue?
CreationistsTM believe that evolution cannot explain god's creation, so in that sense, TE's are not 'those type' of creationists.
I think randman has a hidden agenda with this one...
Obviously, TEists could be considered IDists, but there's really no reason to. All it does is confuse things.
Unless, of course, someone does have a reason... I wonder why randman was trying to do this

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 91 (464483)
04-25-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
04-23-2008 5:50 PM


Where I stand
For openers read one of my first threads on this forum: Is ID properly pursued.
I think such theistic evos are clearly IDers. They believe an Intelligent Designer (God) created the universe, ...
The same could be said about any faith that involves creation myths, and as noted you could also call all such people creationists, however this is diluting the meaning of the terms to be less specific.
I think other theistic evos are likewise IDers, whether they realize or not, because they believe there is an Intelligent Force behind the creation and existence of the universe,...
The problem here that I see is that randman is setting up equivocating between this diluted use of ID to include all people of faith with then equating them to the hard-core ID/creationist camp, those that claim that ID is science and not faith.
I think such theistic evos are clearly IDers.
And equally clearly creationists ... in the loose use of these terms. But that doesn't mean they suddenly accept "irreducible complexity" or "specific complexity" or "information" or a young earth.
The issue of ID is not about belief, when we are talking about ID in schools etc (the reason for the ID concept creation btw), but whether it is science or philosophy.
I don't think any "theistic evo" here or elsewhere would be concerned about ID discussions in philosophy or comparative religion classes: the question comes down to whether we are talking about science in science classes or trying to talk about something that is non-science.
Personally I think we can take the concept of ID and use it to introduce people to science and testable perceptions of reality - if it is properly pursued.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : grammar
Edited by RAZD, : added.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 11 of 91 (464520)
04-26-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rrhain
04-25-2008 3:24 AM


Re: A Clear Divide
Hi Rrhain,
If Ken Miller (for whom I have a good deal of respect) wants to invoke God as some sort of quantum-level tinkerer, that's up to him, but I regard that as little better than Depak Chopra style quantum-mysticism bullshit. There is a tendency these days for anyone who wants to describe something magical to use the Q-word. The intent seems to be to make it seem all sciencey and less ridiculous, and since quantum effects are notoriously hard to understand or pin down, no-one can gainsay such ideas. The quantum realm acts as a last refuge for the improbable and implausible. Personally I run for the hills every time I hear someone who isn't a physicist invoke the dreaded Q-word.
I agree with what you're saying about ID and TE having strong connections though. It is interesting to speculate that the Catholic church might be setting itself up for a fall if it insists that human intelligence is somehow exempt from evolution. Research into the workings of the brain, the ever increasing importance of genetics in evolutionary biology, studies of intelligence in great apes and even research into AI all have the potential to screw up this idea within the next few decades.
Like CS, I wonder where randman intends to take this. One suspects that this is part of an attempt to "prove" that a whole bunch of folks who disagree with him actually agree with him. We shall see.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2008 3:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 12 of 91 (464524)
04-26-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rrhain
04-25-2008 3:24 AM


Theist and evolutionist may or may not = theistic evolutionist
My experience is that theistic evolutionists such as Ken Miller see god's handiwork in extremely subtle ways. Miller, for example, places god in the realm of quantum mechanics. Since QM is an exercise in probability, he has god's actions happening on probabilistic levels, tipping the scales in certain directions rather than dramatic, Spielbergian zap-poofing.
My impression is that Ken Miller keeps his theism and evolution entirely separate. He denies being a theistic evolutionist in that he finds evolution to be too haphazard to have been guided by God.
That said, I think the term "theistic evolutionist", in broad definition, might incorporate everyone from theists who are evoluionists (such as Miller) to those that think God micromanaged evolutions path.
Intelligent design has generally been so vaguely defined that everyone from young Earth creationists to theistic evolutionists can incorporate it. I would presume that anyone who believes in a creator God would think that he/she/it had some intelligence involved in the creation.
I now repeat my assertion that Michael Behe has the most solid ID position that I know of. I would definitely consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist. He is a mainstream evolutionist trying to document God's fingers in certain details. Not that his efforts have at all held up.
Moose
Doesn't merit a new message, so I'll insert it here (the wikipedia "Theistic Evolution" page:
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added wikipedia link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2008 3:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2008 3:54 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 91 (464525)
04-26-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
04-26-2008 3:36 PM


Re: Theist and evolutionist may or may not = theistic evolutionist
Theistic evolution is widely used in the sense where God does NOT intervene in the course of evolution. This is the sense that Randman seems to be referring to, and probably the sense that Dembski meant, too. This is the sort of view that Ken Miller takes - Howard Van Till's "Fully Gifted Creation" is another example.
Behe, while going far further in accepting evolution than the rest of the ID leaders is still looking for direct intervention in the course of evolution. And that I think is the effective dividing line between the mainstream of ID and "theistic evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-26-2008 3:36 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 91 (468337)
05-29-2008 2:24 AM


back to the thread topic
The topic is not about the fact ID theories espoused by the Discovery Institute are different than theistic evos. That is obvious. The issues raised are:
Acceptance of teleology if theistic evos believe God intended to create man.
And for others,
I think other theistic evos are likewise IDers, whether they realize or not, because they believe there is an Intelligent Force behind the creation and existence of the universe, but perhaps they are not teleological and think, for example, God perhaps didn't even know what would happen.
The theistic evo believes God was and maybe is the active agent in causing the universe to come into being and perhaps even the causal agent in sustaining it. That's a clear belief in an Intelligent Designer regardless of the fact they believe the Intelligent Force/Designer used evolution as it's means to create new life forms. As such, it is puzzling to see this very concept ridiculed by theistic evos as if it is non-scientific, and yet they themselves embrace the concept of an Intelligent Designer as causal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 2:33 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 91 (468338)
05-29-2008 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2008 12:55 PM


We could go so far as to say that Theistic Evolutionists are creationists, because they believe that god uses evolution to create lifeforms.
But why cloud the issue?
Why is it clouding the issue to point out the obvious? Theistic evos are in some sense creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-29-2008 12:00 PM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024