Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

Well then, they've invented their own god and attemped to associate it with Christianity and the Bible when in fact it's not the eternal and ID one described in the Bible at all.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This is not a quibble. A belief and an hypothesis are very different; as the terms are used in science they are not interchangeable in the least.Here are some definitions I have put together that may help:

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You could say that intelligent design is implied in the beliefs of many who take a theistic evolution view. But that's intelligent design with a lower-case i and a lower-case d.This does not translate into support of Intelligent Design as foisted upon the public in the last two decades by the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Strategy. Their 'ID' is a label that refers not to an individual philosophical stance, but to a political action agenda in the USA--'Creationism's Trojan Horse,' in Barbara Forrest's apt phrase. The label began in 1987 as a euphemism for 'creation science,' which was ruled unconstitutional that year.

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.

Unfounded and outrageous accusations are no substitute for rational discourse.Bottom line is that theistic evos accept an Intelligent Designer but apparently for theological reasons believe that the Intelligent Designer only intervened in creating the universe and that the universe is not intimately directed at any stage of it's process. Imo, this profoundly contradicts both science and biblical theology, but regardless, 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.....

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.

Do you actually live on the same planet as the rest of us? Ever heard of a film called "Expellled"? Ever heard of "Of Pandas and People"? Ever heard of the wedge document? Ever read the blog entries at uncommon descent?Randman, whatever you're smoking, it's not doing you any good... Most theistic evos I talk to would put it down to evidential reasons. But then, they are scientists.

I quite agree with PaulK. The main thrust of the ID movement is to attempt to pick holes in the ToE. They never provide positive evidence for their Designer, but instead attempt to shot down evolution on the assumption design will then become the default explanation. I agree with that analysis, save that I would add that they believe this for scientific reasons too, i.e. they do not believe that scientific observations show evidence of continuing divine tinkering. In the absence of such evidence (and unwilling to believe that God would create misleading evidence) they conclude that no such interference took place. Well, I agree, although it should be noted that most theistic evo's would not regard their personal views about God as being "science". Such beliefs are not scientific, not part of a scientific outlook, but aside from it, so the apparent contradiction becomes trivial. I strongly disagree with the idea that there is a God, but I nonetheless find common cause with theistic evolutionists because they support the teaching of the ToE in schools. They are not the ones trying to insert pseudo-science in the curriculum.You doubtless disagree with this, but what you have to understand is that this how most evolutionists view the activities of the ID lobby. Atheist evolutionists like myself don't have as much of a problem with people's religious convictions when they are kept out of science classes.

---

Mutate and Survive

Back in message 12 I said: and and I'll now divide the positions into 3 areas - 1)Theistic evolutionists, 2) Intelligent design advocates, and 3) Anti-evolution creationists.Randman, in message 1, seems to be making theistic evolutionists to be a subset of intelligent designers. At least in the case of Behe, I would think it was the opposite - Intelligent design is a subset of theistic evolution.I now repeat my assertion that anyone who believes in a creator God probably thinks that this God had some degree of "intelligent design" involved in the creation process. As such, any variety of creationist (in the broad sense of the term), from deist to theistic evolutionist to old Earth creationist to young Earth creationist probably has at least a little IDist in him or her.Or something like that.Moose

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. 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." So are you arguing that theistic evos believe in an Intelligent Designer despite all the evidence being there is no Designer?

Looks like we have found common ground.....sort of.

By "us", I assume you mean evos since non-evos disagree profoundly with your perception of reality, even in basic facts.Yea, I've seen the movie and read Uncommon Descent, which is one reason I can safely say the accusations are outrageous and false. What evidentiary reasons? Specifically, what evidence is there that:1. That God exists in the first place?
2. That God intended on man's creation?
3. That God never intervenes in this creation and has no connection to it in sustaining it?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Well I certainly haven't seen any positive evidence, only "this can't be due to evolution" style stuff. I appreciate that you see it differently rand, but I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point for now.What is important here is the opinions of atheist evolutionists about ID are pretty similar to the opinions of most theistic evolutionists, i.e. we believe that ID has no evidence and relies on fallacies. Not quite. If God created the universe with the foreknowledge that humanity would eventually evolve without his subsequent interference, then there is no need for the very direct and hands-on interference suggested by IDers.The basic difference is that IDers claim that evolution is insufficient explanation for complexity. Theistic evolutionists see evolution as being a perfectly adequate explanation, even if they do see the process of evolution as having been originally kick-started by God.There is doubtless a fair degree of difference of opinion within the spectrum of opinion that we might usefully term "theistic evolution", but trying to shoehorn ID in there seems a step to far in my opinion. That is my opinion yes, if we are using the term "intelligent designer" in a loose sense, but I don't think that many theists would see it my way. You have to remember that I think that anyone who believes in God does so despite the lack of evidence in favour and the wealth of alternative naturalistic explanations for phenomena traditionally associated with God(s), such as creation of life, causing weather, etc.

---

Mutate and Survive

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.

Granny Magda makes a good point above.A theistic evolutionary biologist can (and many probably do) think that the ideas put forward by ID'ists are not supported by the evidence and are unfounded, while simultaneously still holding a personal belief in a "God" that began the universe.My biggest problem with the ID'ists is that they make a "leap of faith" before doing any work... they have decided that things are so complex that they must have a designer, and then they work backwards with evidence, trying to find things that support that notion and disregarding things that might refute it.The proper scientific method does not assume a designer, but if evidence for one was there, it would and should be considered. However, the impetus is on the ID'ist to demonstrate that a naturalistic process could not produce the same result, and they have not been able to do that.I think the only way you're ever going to "prove" a designer (at least to me) is when you find a microscopic barcode on a cell with "copyright Jehova, 2008" stamped on it.I don't actually see that happening... meanwhile, scientists can still hold personal opinions that allow for a creator without necessarily signing on to some of the ludicrous notions put forward by ID'ists. Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.