Rod Dreher, in his beliefnet blog, writes about Farrell on ID and the Conservative Press, in which he describes a "fiery post" by John Farrell in which "he tears into conservative journals and journalists who have, in his view, given unmerited aid and comfort to ID backers."
Rod himself says he doesn't think much about ID at all, and says that while his sympathies are with IDers--often because of their reasonableness and the way they are sometimes trashed by anti-IDers--that doesn't mean he agrees with ID.
But, he wonders, "I'd love to know how the guys at Touchstone, which has been a big supporter of ID, respond to Farrell's post."
I simply lack the time to write much at all today (and this week), but let me say that the current slate of senior editors here have a range of opinions about ID taken as whole. Part of the problem, I would submit, that there are various sorts of IDers and any group is going to have many fringes, people identifying themselves as IDers whom other IDers don't accept. (Just as there are scientists embarrassed by the anti-religious ravings of Dawkins the scientist.)
What I am coming to find frustrating is how politicized things have become, as well as how imprecise some of the vocabularly is. What, for instance, does someone mean by "evolution"? You really have to ask.
And then, IDers are suspect because most of them are religious believers, while scientists such as Dawkins can speak about theology as much as they wish. I sat and listened to a lecture by Steven Weinberg that was mostly about religion (and wasn't supposed to be) while his ID opponent talked nothing but science.
As to Farrell's post, I am not sure what reasonableness it adds to the situation; my preference would be to hear lots of science debated head on. That's why I've been interested in ID in the first place, because I find science fascinating. Not polemics, but real science.
Farrell may be adding fuel to the fire. He describes Avery Cardinal Dulles's piece in First Things as "otherwise thoughtful" because he gave "a crumb of credibility" to ID. You can't give any space to ID, you see. Much of the opposition is bluster.
Well, I've given space to ID. It's a reasonable position to argue that blind natural mechanical pathways proposed in the past for the rise of life and conscious mind are inadequate--and I believe the evidence for the inadequacy is mounting--and that a design inference is reasonable. There is a growing though quiet acceptance of a stronger anthropic principle, I would argue, and some scientists are simply retreating into multiverse theories, which means you can avoid the impression of any cosmos specially designed for man.
Things are getting very interesting from where I sit. I'll rest here for the time being and watch what comes next.
Truth asks:
"How does new genetic information arise so that one species could macro-evolve into another species?"
and
"Mutations and natural selection do not show *gain* in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information."
First proved a scietifically useful definition of "information" and be willing to stick with that one. for example, do you mean "Shannon information" or perhaps "Kolmogorov-Chaitin information?"
Second, you go first: What is the information content of a bumble bee? What is the information content in a wasp? Please show your work.
The human genome has 20-25000 genes. Rice has 50,000. More information in a human or in rice? Why? If a particualr speices has more genes, does it generally have more information?
Posted by: JRM | October 11, 2007 at 06:21 PM
"Truth by definition is universal and subject to objective verification." (James Altena)
"Is the truth of Jesus' Resurrection universal and subject to objective verification?" (TUAD)
"Yes and no respectively." (Stuart)
Well James, it looks like Stuart contradicts your assertion. You say that truth by definition is universal and subject to objective verification. I think you'd agree that Jesus' Resurrection is the truth and that it's a universal truth. Further, you say that truth is subject to objective verification.
Stuart say no, not in the case of Jesus' Resurrection; i.e., that the historical truth of Jesus' Resurrection is *not* subject to objective verification.
Care to modify?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 11, 2007 at 06:23 PM
JRM, answer my post on 4:54 from today.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 11, 2007 at 06:24 PM
TUAD asks me:
"Given what you've said above, would you support the assertion that the Supernatural triune God of biblical and historical Christianity created the universe and created life from non-life on earth?"
Yes. Did God need to act supernaturally to accomplish these two acts of creation? No. Ther's no evidence He did.
Posted by: JRM | October 11, 2007 at 06:25 PM
>>>Yes. Did God need to act supernaturally to accomplish these two acts of creation? No. Ther's no evidence He did.<<<
Nor that he didn't. Go back to my post of earlier today:
The terse affirmations made in Genesis 1-2 do not amount to explanations or even descriptions, from an Orthodox perspective; they confront us with the declaration that all that is came from God. In presenting the entire universe as God's creative handiwork, Orthodoxy excludes all thought of an evolutionary process operating outside of God, to be sure. EQUALLY, IT PRECLUDES ANY ARROGANT ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND FROM THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF GENESIS HOW GOD BROUGHT ANYTHING INTO EXISTENCE. What Scripture presents is the declaration that God made all that is, without any attempt to clarify how all came into being. The opening chapters of Genesis present what must be wondered at, not what can be fathomed. They offer stimulation for common praise by all those who believe in him, not materials with which we should browbeat fellow believers whose ideas about the way in which God may have accomplished that work differ from ours.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 11, 2007 at 06:30 PM
"There's no evidence He did." (JRM)
Important clarification.
*YOU* see no evidence that He did. Just because you don't see it, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't evidence. Would you agree?
Or let's say that there's been evidence provided, but you reject the evidence that's been provided. You may have rejected the evidence properly or improperly; I simply don't know.
However, I am glad that you support the assertion that the Supernatural triune God of biblical and historical Christianity created the universe, and He created life from non-life on earth. That is an excellent acknowledgement on your part.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 11, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Western Christianity [and, I might add, Western science] could learn a bit more humility in speaking about creation and God from their brothers and sisters in Eastern Orthodoxy--and perhaps, as a result, learn better how to appreciate our brothers and sisters in Western Christianty, too.
I'm not sure I follow this. Did you mean to say, "and perhaps, as a result, [we could] learn better how to appreciate our brothers and sisters in Western Christianty, too." ?
Posted by: John Farrell | October 11, 2007 at 06:49 PM
>EQUALLY, IT PRECLUDES ANY ARROGANT ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND FROM THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF GENESIS HOW GOD BROUGHT ANYTHING INTO EXISTENCE. What Scripture presents is the declaration that God made all that is, without any attempt to clarify how all came into being.
It seems rather arrogant to assert that God used all those words to say what Stuart is able to say in about five words and that nobody can possibly learn more than that from what God has said.
Posted by: David Gray | October 11, 2007 at 07:45 PM
>>>It seems rather arrogant to assert that God used all those words to say what Stuart is able to say in about five words and that nobody can possibly learn more than that from what God has said.<<<
You've got Payton's book. When you get to Chapter 5, let's talk again.
>>>I'm not sure I follow this. Did you mean to say, "and perhaps, as a result, [we could] learn better how to appreciate our brothers and sisters in Western Christianty, too." ?<<<
I'm quoting from a book by Protestant Professor James R. Payton, who is writing about Eastern Christianity for Protestants.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 11, 2007 at 07:49 PM
>You've got Payton's book. When you get to Chapter 5, let's talk again.
I'm about halfway through chapter five right now.
Posted by: David Gray | October 11, 2007 at 08:40 PM
JRM,
I want to thank you again for your support of the assertion that the Supernatural triune God of biblical and historical Christianity has created the universe, and that He also created life from non-life on earth.
Although you see no evidence of Him doing so, you do accept it by faith. Very good.
With regards to my question "How does new genetic information arise so that one species could macro-evolve into another species?", you asked what I meant by genetic information.
Well, for starters, how about specified complexity (CSI)?
Look at this 3-part series: "A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “Information Challenge” (Part 1): Specified Complexity Is the Measure of Biological Complexity
Here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/a_response_to_richard_dawkins.html
--------
One last call for objections. Everybody cool with taking abiogenesis (life from non-life) and cosmogony (origin of the universe) out of the domain of Science, and specifically out of neo-darwinian macro-evolution, since it's scientifically unsupportable as Franklin wrote?
Repeating, my understanding of neo-Darwinian macro-evolution was/is that it was/is a molecules-to-man theory or a scientific "fact" advanced by a good number of scientists (and non-scientists) which is also taught in schools across America. Franklin and JRM and whoever else, you're telling me that I'm wrong in my understanding, right?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 11, 2007 at 09:19 PM
>>>I'm about halfway through chapter five right now.<<<
You'll be hitting pp. 99-101 any moment now.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 11, 2007 at 09:31 PM
"Well, for starters, how about specified complexity (CSI)?"
What about it? You need to answer my original questions about what you mean by "information." Adding the words "specifed" and "complex" to a term that you show no ability to comprehend doesn't help. Hint: Casey Luskin doesn't know anythign about information either.
Posted by: JRM | October 11, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Looks like Richard Dawkins doesn't either.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 11, 2007 at 11:04 PM
"Looks like Richard Dawkins doesn't either."
The problem is that you statement-- "Nobody has ever shown that evolution can increase "information"--is the equivalent of "Nobody has ever shown that evolution can increase the Zorphoz quotient."
Neither you, Dawkins, Luskin or I have the foggiest idea of how to caclculate either the Zorphoz quotient or the CSI of the bacterial flagellum. Both terms are equally meaningless.
Posted by: JRM | October 11, 2007 at 11:38 PM
>They [the opening chapters of Genesis] offer stimulation for common praise by all those who believe in him, not materials with which we should browbeat fellow believers whose ideas about the way in which God may have accomplished that work differ from ours.<
Stuart,
It's way late at night and I don't even know why I'm awake and reading now . . . but I just had to say Amen! to that.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | October 12, 2007 at 05:00 AM
>> They [the opening chapters of Genesis] offer stimulation for common praise by all those who believe in him, not materials with which we should browbeat fellow believers whose ideas about the way in which God may have accomplished that work differ from ours.<<
"ID proponents seriously damage the Christian faith." (JRM)
JRM, Stuart offers good counsel.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 12, 2007 at 06:55 AM
>>>JRM, Stuart offers good counsel.<<<
Stuart tries. But, TUAD, that counsel was addressed to all, and you are as much an offender as offended. So, take counsel.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 12, 2007 at 07:04 AM
Moi?
Just because I don't believe in neo-darwinian macro-evolution is a far cry from browbeating fellow Christians who do believe in neo-darwinian macro-evolution. I really feel like they're trying to cram neo-darwinian macro-evolution down our throats. I just say, "No, thank you."
Also, my good fellow, I looked up the word browbeat on the internet. Here it is: "To intimidate or subjugate by an overbearing manner or domineering speech; bully."
Stuart, be honest and forthcoming. You browbeat other Christians on this blog on various topics frequently. You may even be a contender for the leading browbeater on MereComments.
So when you say take counsel, may I presume that you were looking in the mirror first?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 12, 2007 at 07:31 AM
>>>Stuart, be honest and forthcoming. You browbeat other Christians on this blog on various topics frequently.<<<
Of course. They had it coming.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 12, 2007 at 07:36 AM
Stuart, James Kushiner wrote above: "Rod Dreher, in his beliefnet blog, writes about Farrell on ID and the Conservative Press, in which he describes a "fiery post" by John Farrell in which "he tears into conservative journals and journalists who have, in his view, given unmerited aid and comfort to ID backers."
.
.
Farrell may be adding fuel to the fire. He describes Avery Cardinal Dulles's piece in First Things as "otherwise thoughtful" because he gave "a crumb of credibility" to ID. You can't give any space to ID, you see. Much of the opposition is bluster."
So when you wrote: "They [the opening chapters of Genesis] offer stimulation for common praise by all those who believe in him, not materials with which we should browbeat fellow believers whose ideas about the way in which God may have accomplished that work differ from ours", I thought they were primarily directed to Christians like Farrell and who think like Farrell.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 12, 2007 at 07:44 AM
>>>Stuart, be honest and forthcoming. You browbeat other Christians on this blog on various topics frequently.<<<
"Of course. They had it coming." (Stuart)
LOL! They had it coming so it's "justified" browbeating. Ooooooooo-kay.
I wonder if all those you've browbeaten would agree that they had it coming. Hmmmmmmmmm....
;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 12, 2007 at 07:56 AM
TUAD,
Franklin, you're self-challenged as well in knowing how to formulate your questions. At times, we all are.
And I will accept correction every time. For myself, for you and for all of us who are similarly challenged, I also reserve the right to ask why is my question not forumlated correctly.
"Why?" is the first question a child asks as he or she embarks on the long and endless road of abstract reasoning. I never expect that anyone, including myself, can ever rest on our laurels.
I went to a much needed early bed time last night. I'll try to catch up with the subsequent discussion.
Posted by: Franklin Evans | October 12, 2007 at 08:04 AM
>>I wonder if all those you've browbeaten would agree that they had it coming.<<
Only the smart ones.
;-)
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | October 12, 2007 at 08:28 AM
"I'll try to catch up with the subsequent discussion." (Franklin)
I should probably retire from the discussion. Respectful disagreement with neo-darwinian macro-evolution is being construed as "browbeating". That being the case, I have no intention of continuing to be perceived as a "browbeater".
Peace and blessings to all.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 12, 2007 at 08:28 AM
>>>So when you wrote: "They [the opening chapters of Genesis] offer stimulation for common praise by all those who believe in him, not materials with which we should browbeat fellow believers whose ideas about the way in which God may have accomplished that work differ from ours", I thought they were primarily directed to Christians like Farrell and who think like Farrell.<<<
Both sides of the fence, actually. There are those who won't give the time of day to ID'ers, and others who would would anathematize anyone who accepts any part of evolutionary theory, and then there are those who stake out positions in between. I have, on this board, heard people reject the concept of "theistic evolution" as incompatible with Scripture. And I have heard others, who while not falling into the Seven Day Creationist trap, also reject the notion that the first chapters of Genesis are to be interpreted metaphorically or analogically, and not literally.
But to one who holds to an Eastern Christian understanding of the limitations of Scripture when it comes to understanding the divine nature, evolution in either the micro or macro sense is not incompatible with Christian belief, provided one accepts the fundamental premise that God created all things visible and invisible, and that full understanding of HOW God chose to do this is not something found in Scripture, nor indeed, something that any human could possibly understand, because of the insuperable gulf between creature and Creator, which makes knowing God in his essence an impossibility.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 12, 2007 at 08:45 AM
Stuart, well said. And if I may bring this back to my original post, and not Rod's and James' take on the tone of my post, my main gripe is not so much with ID, as the shoddy state of conservative journalism when it comes to reporting science. ID is just the latest example.
Setting aside ID, for example, Tom Bethell was ranting about Darwin long before Michael Behe and William Dembski arrived, and he was ranting about relativity as well. I don't have a problem even so much with Bethell's nonsense, but conservative journals have a duty to also publish more legitimate reporting on science and not just a contributing editor's personal fascination with cranks he happens to be friends with. That, I'm afraid, seems to be the standard all too often at National Review and American Spectator. Thank God for Father Neuhaus at First Things is all I can say.
Posted by: John Farrell | October 12, 2007 at 09:29 AM
John,
It's not just conservative journalists who misrepresent scientific results. It is *all* journalists who are not also scientists (and sometimes it is scientist journalists reporting on areas outside of their expertise). Experience makes better journalists and so does a knowledge of philosophy. The guys at Science and Nature usually get it right. Rick Weiss of the Washington Post is a good journalist who *usually* gets his science right (incidentally, he is an admitted atheiest).
Posted by: Gene Godbold | October 12, 2007 at 09:41 AM
My pet peeve is statistics. I can't remember seeing an article that presented statistics properly.
On my cubicle wall:
24% of all statistics are meaningless.
-- Artificial Intelligence axiom
Posted by: Franklin Evans | October 12, 2007 at 04:24 PM
>>>24% of all statistics are meaningless.
-- Artificial Intelligence axiom<<<
36.2% of all such axioms are made up.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 12, 2007 at 07:57 PM
I kid you not: I attended the monthly meeting of the local computer society, and the AI group (very small) was having a seminar on heuristics. I walked into the back of the classroom, and there on the blackboard in big print was the axiom.
I laughed out loud. They all turned and looked at me, wondering what the joke was. It's the best natural pun I've ever seen.
Posted by: Franklin Evans | October 12, 2007 at 08:43 PM
"Modern methodological naturalism is the underlying core of the evolution vs. ID debate." (James Altena; please finish reading the rest of his 10/3 7:57pm post)
I wonder if this underlying core contains a circular argument or not.
"We know that humans had to have evolved from an ancestor of apes because macro-evolution is the only *scientific* theory that explains our existence through *natural* causes. Science (via imposed methodological naturalism) only recognizes natural causes for our existence, therefore macro-evolution must be true."
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | October 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Change "...therefore macro-evolution must be true[.]" to "therefore macro-evolution is the best scientific explanation we have[.]" and your circularity disappears.
Posted by: Franklin Evans | October 20, 2007 at 08:11 PM
>>>Change "...therefore macro-evolution must be true[.]" to "therefore macro-evolution is the best scientific explanation we have[.]" and your circularity disappears.<<<
Understanding that all such explanations are contingent upon the next scientific discovery. In science, you should never buy a theory, but rather rent it by the hour.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | October 20, 2007 at 08:13 PM