I note that you don’t really answer any of my points.
As for their theology, you did say this much.
Why should anyone who takes such a view want to change science to make it fit your theology?
So again we are back to the question if how science should change.
Are you suggesting that science should fragment, along theological lines? That hardly seems a good idea. Suggesting that science should just favour your theology is obviously even worse, as well as being obviously unworkable.
Indeed, if the proposed changes can’t be justified without reference to theology - if they are not good principles anyway - wouldn’t they be a bad idea, regardless? And it does seem clear that you want a lowering of standards which must be considered suspect, even if it is general and not tailored to suit your beliefs.
Really it is up to the proponents of design to up their scientific game and start producing a theory (and yes, I do mean only starting to do it - there’s plenty of time for development and revision). If they can’t do that then design is really not on the table as a scientific proposal.
Of course, that assumes they are speaking truthfully when they says their goal is to contribute to scientific understanding. We know from the Wedge Document that they are not speaking truthfully. Their goal, rather, is to undermine and seed distrust in science as a method by which we determine what is true.
First, I’m not obliged to answer all points directed at me here. I have about ten people attacking me here, sometimes in petty and personal ways, and sometimes several times per day. If I felt obliged to answer all points, I would get nothing else done. Maybe you’re retired and can spend all day quarrelling on the internet, but I can’t – I have to earn a living.
Second, speaking of not answering points, you never answered this one:
Rubbish. Nothing I’ve said warrants that remark. We are talking here about the theology of BioLogos – BioLogos, which brought standards of theology to a new low. But there’s no point discussing this with you until you tell us just how much you followed the theological discussions on BioLogos. I suspect, from the fact that you have not mentioned the views expressed by any of the principals, that the answer is, “very little.”
I don’t say that you are obliged to answer my points, but the fact that you answer none of them seems significant. Especially when they are asking for clarification of your claims. That you refuse again is also significant,
That is not really a point, nor is it really relevant since I wasn’t asking about their theology.
It seems clear that you were suggesting that science should be changed so that it does detect design in life - although you refuse to clarify that at all. The reason science does not detect design is due to the shortage of evidence, and the low quality of arguments for design. Given that, the implication is that scientific standards should be lowered.
You are trying to do that, but that’s a diversion from my questions.
Good. Since that isn’t what I want to discuss anyway.
There are many approaches to Christian faith that would harmonize with science, so why should they proscribe just one?
They are starting from the position that harm is done to the Christian faith when you insist on theologies that are directly contradicted by mountains of empirical evidence. Many of them are scientists, so their main focus is on figuring out how reliable the science is so that they can know if specific theologies conflict with the known science.
Then why are you commenting on this page? Take your discussion elsewhere, if you want to go off-topic.
You are taking my remarks out of context, again because you don’t have a clue about years of
discussion on BioLogos. BioLogos originally claimed epistemological parity between science and faith. That means neither should be subordinated to the other. But in practice theology was subordinated to the alleged certainties of science. I don’t care to argue this with someone who didn’t spend 9 years, as I did, learning the personal biographies and theologies of the BioLogos leaders, debating with them online, and reading every theological column on BioLogos. If you contradict me, I’ll just ignore the contradiction as coming with someone with only a superficial familiarity.
They have yet to suggest one that is orthodox. Read Jon Garvey’s Hump of the Camel columns on the subject. Or are you unwilling to learn from someone who actually knows orthodox Christian theology?
Jon Garvey solves that problem without straying into unorthodoxy. Again, read his columns. And my columns, on the same site, though I’d take a back seat to Jon on knowledge of Patristics.
Not seeing the problem, sorry. Not only theology, of course, but all metaphysical speculation is properly subordinate to science, since only science has a means by which what is logically possible, not to mention things which might seem beyond reasonable doubt to be true, can be falsified.
I read over 40 articles at the Hump. His disdain for covid responses, evolution, climate as poor science is rivaled by his acceptance of extreme strong acceptance of some interesting political views.
You haven’t mentioned a single theology topic! His more recent posts are on timely political issues; his older posts are heavily theological, and critical of BioLogos and liberal theology generally. Use the indexes on the site.
He certainly doesn’t attack evolution; in fact, he supports the Genealogical Adam – Swamidass’s position.
He does have strong opinions on COVID responses. He practiced medicine for 30 years and has been reading voluminously on the epidemiology and collateral costs. But here we are talking about theology and BioLogos. There’s lots there. I have some pieces on BioLogos there, too. My name has its own category so you can find my posts easily.
BioLogos strongly disagrees with you here. And rightly so. They aren’t wrong on everything, just about ID and theology.
I’m following up on your assertion and trying to get you to elaborate on it, since it seems unworkable to me.
Hardly. What you have said is clear enough.
That’s really not the case we are discussing. In saying that they see design “through the eyes of faith” they would if anything be giving priority to theology. They certainly are not saying that design is not present just because science doesn’t find it. On the other hand, saying that science should be changed to reach the conclusions your theology says it should reach would be letting your theology dictate the practices of science.
I was genuinely curious as to whether Garvey had a good approach to science and Christian theology that would satisfy Eddie’s and others commitments to their traditional orthodox views. I started with his most recent posts.
They are full of the aforementioned politics even those tagged with theology. There is one interesting post that describes genesis 1 as building a tabernacle rather than temple and the faith motifs. As of 60 posts, this was the theologically driven one
Two evolution posts (‘explanatory power of evolution’ and ‘concerning giraffes and evolution’) had some statements:
This did not seem to be harmonized as previously claimed. I may look at his earlier work and books instead.
@Mercer , I am not pretending to be theologically driven. I wanted to see his approach and instead mostly saw something else and i commented on that. As for the driven aspect, I think theology and politics are both important.
OTOH, the guy who managed do get all those other things right could not for the life of him figure out how to reroute a single nerve so that it was not many feet longer than it had to be. Does Garvey have an explanation for that?
Their motive in using that language is clear. There are saying, in effect, that no amount of evidence or argument could ever establish the objective fact of design in nature, and that seeing design in nature is a matter of religious or theological taste. And that is already to a take a theological/metaphysical/epistemological position, and hardly “neutral.”
I’m fully aware of that.
I have not recommended doing that. You chose to read that into my remarks. I can probably divine what in my remarks caused you to think that, but it’s not worth reconstructing the confusion when it’s not my position anyway. If you knew the context of my original remarks – if you had been present for 9 years when this subject came up again and again (but you weren’t; you were too busy posting on atheist sites like Moran’s at the time) – you would know that I was pointing out a certain methodological inconsistency, not recommending that theology dictate science. I’m not going to clarify further. You weren’t in on the discussions at the time, doing the hard spadework, and you haven’t earned further responses.
That’s pretty bad. I wonder if he’s bothered to realize that this giraffe-neck evolution might indeed be difficult (or have trade-offs) and that this may be part of the reason why other leaf-browsers aren’t equally tall. Or bothered to look into the mechanics of complex adaptations. There’s a nice book by Tom Kemp, The Origin of Higher Taxa, which would have helped him get the general idea, at least.
That is certainly not conveyed by the language, nor is it at all clear that would be the case if there were strong evidence for design in nature. But even if they were that would be putting theology ahead of science. THAT is obvious.
So you knew perfectly well that they were not putting science ahead of theology,
We are not discussing your “original remarks”, only what you have said in this thread.
You certainly seemed to prefer that science should be made to agree with theology:
And in a context where your complaint is that design was a theological conclusion, not a scientific one, the rest seems obvious.
