Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?
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

  
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

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


Message 17 of 91 (468340)
05-29-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
05-29-2008 2:24 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
quote:
The topic is not about the fact ID theories espoused by the Discovery Institute are different than theistic evos. That is obvious.
So, you are saying that theistic evolutionists are obviously NOT ID'ers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:24 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 19 of 91 (468344)
05-29-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
05-29-2008 2:35 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
How can Dembski say that ID is "no friend of theistic evolution" if theistic evolution is ID ? Shouldn't Dembski of all people know what is and is not ID ?
How does your classification deal with a theistic evolutionist who is a noted opponent of ID ?
It's really not clear how you can maintain that theistic evolution is aligned with ID in the face of clear disagreement between the two camps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:35 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:54 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 21 by Iblis, posted 05-29-2008 3:09 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 23 of 91 (468385)
05-29-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
05-29-2008 2:54 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
No, I am pointing out that the points in the OP do not seem to constitute a good definition of waht it is to be an "IDer".
My grounds are that:
1) It requires labelling a prominent opponent of ID as a supporter of ID.
2) It requires saying that a prominent member of the ID movement didn't even understand what ID was.
To which we could add that the modern ID movement originated as a relabelling of creationism (as revealed in the Dover trial), that a large majority of ID's output is anti-evolution and that ID seems mainly concerned with modifying the teaching of evolution in schools. If theistic evolutionists are opposed to a large majority of the output of ID and a - perhaps the - major objective of ID, why on earth should we consider them to support ID ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:54 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:29 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 24 of 91 (468388)
05-29-2008 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Iblis
05-29-2008 3:09 AM


Re: a house divided against itself
The problem is that Catholics are accepted as Christian on the whole - even by many Protestants. To the best of my knowledge Catholics accept many Protestants as Christians (even recognising the ordinations of the Anglican church, for instance).
So your point is really restricted to those extremist Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christian at all. But who among them could have the authority to speak for Christianity to the same extent that Dembski - one of the "Founding Fathers" of ID - could speak for the ID movement ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Iblis, posted 05-29-2008 3:09 AM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 31 of 91 (468446)
05-29-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
05-29-2008 1:29 PM


Re: back to the thread topic
The question in the title is whether theistic evolutionists are ID'ers, not whether theistic evolution is science - which isn't even mentioned in the OP. To repeat - yet again - my answer to the OP, classifying theistic evolutionists as ID'ers based on their belief in a creator is badly misleading for the reasons I've given.
And to answer your other question, off-topic as it is, I do not consider theistic evolution to be science (although it includes an acceptance of science with regard to evolution and more). Moreover, I do not recall hearing a theistic evolutionist claim otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:29 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 36 of 91 (468454)
05-29-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Codegate
05-29-2008 2:15 PM


quote:
If a person believes that:
a) God created the universe
b) God created the universe in such a way that he knew man would evolve
Then I would say they are IDists since God explictly designed man (sure with a bunch of intermediate steps, but what's that to God)
Why would someone who believes that have to join an anti-evolution movement ? (see my Message 23 in particular).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Codegate, posted 05-29-2008 2:15 PM Codegate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Codegate, posted 05-29-2008 5:10 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 40 of 91 (468472)
05-29-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Codegate
05-29-2008 5:10 PM


Thy didn't so much hijack it as create it. THe modern use, as I say, was as a straight replacement for creationism - a rebranding exercise, essentially. They took the creationist text book they were working on and replaced "creationism" or "creation" with "intelligent design". Even to leaving the definition the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Codegate, posted 05-29-2008 5:10 PM Codegate has not replied

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


Message 64 of 91 (468672)
05-31-2008 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
05-30-2008 8:20 PM


Re: Where I stand
quote:
Agreed but mainly I am getting at is that theistic evos are generally within the ID camp per the creation of the universe and yet many belittle ID as a threat to science or some such.
Seems mighty inconsistent to me....would like to hear how some theistic evos resolve that.
If you'd been reading my posts you would know that there is no inconsistency. The ID movements's main focus is opposition to evolution. They want to use political power to sabotage the teaching of evolution, bypassing the scientific process. They want science itself to be changed so that it gives results more to their liking. Theistic evolutionists in general agree with none of this.
If the ID camp were to put forward work consistent with TE views then TEs might support that - if they felt it to have merit (they are under no obligation to support bad arguments, even if they agree with the conclusions !). But if the ID camp's output is opposed to TE views (as the vast majority is) then why should TE's withhold their criticism ? If the proposals of the ID movement would harm science then why should TEs be silent on that ?
You are clearly confusing consistency with inconsistency. The agreement you refer to is simply not relevant to the actual criticisms - which are founded on the very real disagreements between the two camps.
Hugh Ross is an OEC, Russell Humphreys is a YEC. Therefore they have more agreement between them an TEs do with the ID camp. But obviously there is nothing inconsistent in Ross criticising Humprey's Starlight and Time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 12:59 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 66 of 91 (468770)
06-01-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
06-01-2008 12:59 PM


Re: Where I stand
quote:
Unfounded and outrageous accusations are no substitute for rational discourse.
Then it's just as well that I'm not making any.
quote:
...tegardless, it strikes me that theistic evos commit the same "sins" of accepting an Intelligent Designer as other IDers, and yet you guys don't have a problem with them.
interesting.....
Not really. All it shows is that what you label a "sin" isn't what we object to in ID. That shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone who is informed on the issues of the ID controversy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 12:59 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 74 of 91 (468787)
06-01-2008 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
06-01-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Where I stand
quote:
You guys can keep mischaracterizing ID that way if you want, but it's simply not true. Both in biology and related sciences, and math and physics, ID presents very specific positive evidence. You can disagree with trying to use forensics or other more nuanced positive evidence if you want to, but to pretend no positive evidence is presented is just false.
Te vast majority of ID arguments are negative. Irreducible complexity ? A negative argument. CSI - a negative argument (and one made without actually producing a single valid example). The Cambrian explosion ? A negative argument. Maybe you could count the intuitive assessment of the appearance of design as a positive argument but it;s hardly "very specific evidence". And ID is certainly NOT about forensics (that uses that nasty methodological naturalism that ID advocates object to)
quote:
Is this really true? I would think theistic evos, at least those that believe God intended on man being created, think that evolution and so-called "natural" processes are God's "tinkering."
No, they certainly don't think that God is constantly adjusting and messing with natural processes to make them produce the right result.
quote:
So are you arguing that theistic evos believe in an Intelligent Designer despite all the evidence being there is no Designer?
I think you have a dose of the scientism that is so common in IDers. It is quite possible for people to hold religious beliefs that are outside of what science proves or even can prove. There is no problem with a TE haveing a religious belief in a designer even if it cannot be scientifically proved. IDers may demand that there must be scientific proof of God, but many other people disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 3:05 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024