Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

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

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

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

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