Greg Cootsona: What About Intelligent Design?

I would like to emphasize that we need to be careful of the language of God’s being detectable through complexity. The language of “witness” (Ps. 19, Ro.1:19-20) is more biblical. It’s also the problem of saying complexity is the locus of this witness. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be.
By the way, Joshua, I think your reply is on target about whether some of the comments are about my article, and so I won’t much respond to those. Just FYI…

1 Like

Eddie, this is good. Thanks for what you wrote, and most of it contains friendly amendments. Of course, I’ll pass by those and offer a few rejoinders.

To 1: I don’t agree that “‘neo-Darwinism’ is kind of shorthand for ‘descent with modification driven entirely by unguided, unplanned factors,’” even if Behe et al. think different. Still, today, after more reading and research in the past two years, I think “extended evolutionary synthesis” seems like a better option. What do you think? Nevertheless, we have to be careful about this “design vs. chance” discourse! From a scientific perspective, what design exactly? The design isn’t entirely evident unless a teleology is supplied from outside. Are human beings better designed than dinosaurs? Yes, if it is about giving conscious praise to our Creator. But no, depending on the natural environment. Put another way, we believe God is providentially working through history, but “from below,” that’s not always easy to see. Something analogous is true in natural history.

To 2: I agree that “their” could have been clarified. Good point. Still, ID in general and DI in particular promoted Pandas. So they bear some responsibility. Once again, be careful of reading too much into a wikipedia page as my only source–this is a trade publication, not an academic book.

To 3: I love your theological orientation! I also thinks it’s unfair to group me into the “BioLogos” crowd–though I respect their views, I don’t work for them; I’m just an advisor. The term “Templeton” is way too vast to create a “Templeton School” or something like that. If you wanted more detail on what I’ve written about God’s actions in the world, “God and the World” spills considerably more ink, to choose just one source. And I have to repeat: Mere Science and Christian Faith is a trade publication in which I’m trying to introduce readers to the topic. It’s a “field guide.” Simply put, I do know there are rebuttals to these critiques of ID. I haven’t read every single one, but the ones I have simply do not offer convincing arguments.

Let me finish by saying that I think we do have some theological common ground. I’d love to know more.

1 Like

More than that. Pandas was originally a specifically creationist text, and DI people edited it lightly to create a new edition that was no longer specifically creationist, just ID. Let also recall that this was the source of “cdesign proponentsists”.

Thanks, Greg. I tried to send you something today, but my gmail account said that your address was not well-formed. I tried it (copied and pasted from here) exactly as it was, and then without capitals, and got the same result. Yet the address you gave matches the address given for you on your school’s website. I’m stumped. I’ll send you an e-mail for me by PM here, and see if we can work contact from the other end.

Greg, thanks for the reply. I can’t reply to Josh, because there is a “Newb” 2 post limit. That limit is a good idea, they should use that on Facebook! Here is my controversy…

  1. If the Bible were never written, and Jesus Christ had never lived I would still not be convinced of Evolution’s claims.
  2. If the Earth is not just 3.5 Billion years old, but instead is 3.5 Billion (Squared), I would still not be convinced of Evolution’s claims.
  3. If we are going to use the Bible as a Truth Source, in my view, “Made” is clear, and I am not betting on Evolution getting the job done.

The good news, for you, is many/most Christians are going to be “civil” to you when you claim Evolution got the job done. If you take the opposite view you will be Firmly opposed. Oh Well! On a side note, Josh does not feel that Perfect Solar eclipses are a possible piece of evidence, that Somebody was involved. This view is flat out baffling to me!

1 Like

Greg:

I’ll reply to your contents only in sketch form here; the rest we can discuss privately, probably next week or the week after.

1-- I wasn’t offering that statement about neo-Darwinism as what the word mean historically; if you want to know that you can of course read Mayr, or Gould’s Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I was merely remarking on its use in Behe and many other ID writers, who tend to use it more loosely.

2-- Extended evolutionary synthesis. If you want Behe’s reaction to some of the key proposals of the synthesis, read Darwin Devolves. He argues the extended synthesis fails to solve the problem that Darwin and classical neo-Darwinism couldn’t solve: the origin of significant new biological innovation. I’m not here to argue that Behe is correct about this. I’m merely pointing out that for him, it’s not a good use of time to worry about whether the extended synthesis is a mere expansion on neo-Darwinism, or a partial correction of it, or whatever. The point is not the label, it’s the thing itself. In the end it relies largely on what he calls unguided mechanisms, i.e., relies too much on chance. (And I trust you have read Behe enough to know that he allows that chance can do some things, a point he repeats and stresses in DD.)

3-- Discourse about design vs. chance. Yes, it can get very tricky, as I know from the past four decades of reading Aristotle, Plato, Hume, Paley, Darwin, Bergson, and many others on the subject. I was not denying that the subject requires careful treatment. I was merely noting that it avoids something which “creation vs. evolution” discourse commits one to: that either creation or evolution is true, and the two conclusions are therefore at war. I decided, long before I had ever heard of ID, indeed, before Discovery even existed, that “creation vs. evolution” was an unreasonable polarization, and had abandoned it. Yet Creation Science had insisted on that polarization, at most allowing, grudgingly, some “microevolution” (as it calls it). On the other hand, when I picked up my first ID books, what did I find? Behe – accepted common descent. Denton – accepted common descent. In other words, at least as far as our bodies go, we come from primitive ancestors. That’s not creationism or creation science or scientific creationism or anything of the sort.

So you could be an ID proponent and not be “anti-evolution”. Sure, there are many ID proponents who are anti-evolution, but that is their personal judgment, often based on a particular Protestant reading of Genesis; it’s not an ID position as such. Being suspicious of the power of unguided mechanisms to (by themselves) create major organic change does not in itself commit one to opposition to common descent, even universal common descent. Thus, the way is open within ID for “God created through a process of evolution” – and there is at least potentially some overlap between ID and TE/EC.

4-- Unfortunately, due to cultural and personal factors (of which no small one is that a large number of the leading Protestant TEs – Isaac, Falk, Venema, Giberson, Haarsma, Murphy, Lamoureux – started out as creationists, or at least were raised in strongly creationist communities, or were at one point converted to and for a time defended a creationist form of belief), there has been bad blood between the groups (ID and TE/EC). I do not think this will be gone until the last of the generation that quarreled in their churches and denominations and seminaries over The Genesis Flood has slithered off this mortal coil. The personal investments, religiously and professionally, of that generation of fundamentalists-turned-TEs, are too great for it to envision dialogue with even the most evolution-friendly of IDers. The scars of the battles of the 1960s through 1980s still hurt too deeply. But this time is fast approaching. Already the older TE/EC leaders most prominent in the most trenchant attacks on ID are in their late 1960s; most of them no longer have university teaching or research positions. A generation of Christians, interested in origins, is arising who really aren’t interested in rehashing old debates the 60-70-year-olds heard in the 1970s between Duane Gish and some atheist, etc., a generation capable of taking the best ideas of both ID and TE/EC. I look to them. The old guard of anything never changes its mind, it just dies off.

5-- May I mention two of the best books about ID written by non-ID proponents?

Del Ratzsch – Nature, Design, and Science
Rope Kojonen – The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism

Both these authors treat ID with respect. They are critics of it, but they grant it some value. If every ID critic wrote like these two, the whole debate over ID would have taken a much more constructive course, better for science, better for education, better for avoiding polarization in the culture. Unfortunately, most criticism of ID has not been so careful or measured, not even criticism from Christian quarters.

6-- Thanks for clarifying your relationship to BioLogos and Templeton. I also understand the limited purpose of your chapter in question. I was just trying to explain why some ID folks might react the way they did to some of your points.

This is all I will say here, but you can drop me that private email, and we can continue later.

Are you sure ?
Doesn’t Roman 1-20 below refute your claim:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

1 Like

I don’t think @Mark10.45 was saying that all of God’s involvement in the world was and is hidden. Moreover, scripture refers both to God’s transcendence (his “otherness” from the world he created) and even long periods of silence—while also manifesting his invisible qualities as mentioned in the Romans passage.

Jesus spoke of some of the ways God’s ways and purposes are kept hidden from us and the Apostle Paul wrote of the mysteries of God. Redemption history is a mixture of divine silence and hiddenness as well as divine revelations at key periods.

Was God “directly” involved in aiming the massive body known as the Chicxulub impactor, which wiped out the dinosaurs and led to the environments in which humans thrived? The Bible is silent and we know little about God’s involvement and purposes in that event.

Yes I am sure, and no my “claim” is not refuted, in fact Romans 1 is a great example of how the truth is hidden from those that prefer to walk in darkness. Interesting that you picked that chapter, read the whole chapter, some pretty obvious references to God hiding the truth from those that practice Godlessness and choose to tolerate sin. This is what precedes the verse you picked, specifically referring to the fact that we must have faith to understand the Word:

Romans 1:16-19 - 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel [c]of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [d]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [e]manifest [f]in them, for God has shown it to them.

Jesus speaks similarly in Matthew 11:

Matthew 11:24-26 - 24 "But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” 25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

Ezekiel 39:23-24 - 23 The Gentiles shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity; because they were unfaithful to Me, therefore I hid My face from them. I gave them into the hand of their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. 24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions I have dealt with them, and hidden My face from them.” ’

Isaiah 29:14 - Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

Jesus states specifically that some scripture is given in parables with the specific purpose of hiding the truth from those that prefer sin -

Mark 4:10-12 - 10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the [d]mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that

‘Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.’ ”

1 Like

Hi Greg. That’s a choice that would probably make most evolutionary biologists grimace. The extended evolutionary synthesis isn’t really a thing – it’s more a label a few people stuck on a grab bag of disparate ideas of varying importance. My impression is that it’s quietly fading away even as a label.

1 Like

Thanks for this. I’m not sure I need to respond specifically, but I hope we continue the conversation at some point, in some venue, in the future…

2 Likes

Steve. Thanks for this reply! I haven’t written this anywhere yet, and so there’s time to find an alternative. Is there a better word you’d use? In generally, I find myself regularly taking refuge in the simple word “evolution.” How does that work?

1 Like

‘Evolution’, ‘evolutionary biology’, and ‘evolutionary theory’ can all be fine, depending on context and what you mean. As can ‘common descent’, of course.

That is understandable. :slight_smile: Do you know the non-design explanations that have been offered for this?

I tend to resolve this thusly:

  1. Use the term “evolutionary science.”

  2. Emphasize that evolutionary science extended beyond just “darwinism” a long time ago, and that it doesn’t rule out God’s action within or alongside natural processes.

  3. Where-ever possible, narrow down to the relevant focused concept I’m discussing, for example use “common descent” where common descent will do.

I agree with @glipsnort that the “Extended Synthesis” has a lot of baggage as a term and its best to avoid it.

1 Like

Good Point! Send me your favorite link. Ideally, please point out (with timeframes on the presentation) on what convinces you most, that Nobody got the job done. Thanks!

I’m not “convinced” by any theory because the question is far more interesting and complex as you study it more. This article is a good read about how it is being looked at:

The article referred to here, interestingly, proposes a weak anthropic principle, tied to the origin of life:

The nearly equal lunar and solar angular sizes as subtended at the Earth is generally regarded as a coincidence. This is, however, an incidental consequence of the tidal forces from these bodies being comparable. Comparable magnitudes implies strong temporal modulation, as the forcing frequencies are nearly but not precisely equal. We suggest that on the basis of palaeogeographic reconstructions, in the Devonian period, when the first tetrapods appeared on land, a large tidal range would accompany these modulated tides. This would have been conducive to the formation of a network of isolated tidal pools, lending support to A. S. Romer’s classic idea that the evaporation of shallow pools was an evolutionary impetus for the development of chiridian limbs in aquatic tetrapodomorphs. Romer saw this as the reason for the existence of limbs, but strong selection pressure for terrestrial navigation would have been present even if the limbs were aquatic in origin. Since even a modest difference in the Moon’s angular size relative to the Sun’s would lead to a qualitatively different tidal modulation, the fact that we live on a planet with a Sun and Moon of close apparent size is not entirely coincidental: it may have an anthropic basis.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2168/20140263

Before you dismiss that idea, it would also imply a strong fine tuning in the moon required or life.

But is the correct answer? I’m not sure. In the end, I’m left with the question, not a neat and tidy answer. Certainly God created all things, including the moon. But the question is how? And why? Those questions are deep, and I don’t think we know the answer yet.

Just looked at the first one, and the related video, will review the others later.

  1. Totally Cool. Thanks much!

  2. Thanks for “bringing it down, from the High Shelf”.

  3. I appreciate the Small Bites. Occasionaly, I get a “homework” assignment from my atheist friends…
    One time, I had to read the entire Transcript from the 1920’s Scopes Monkey Trial… pretty boring, but Good news in there from my perspective.

  4. So, just so you know where I am coming from… I accept 3.5 Billion years for the Earth age.
    But as I have said before, if the Skeptics want 3.5 Billion (Squared), they can have it, no problem.

  5. Now, back to Moon. Actually I was aware of this, I have read much of Hugh Ross books/materials/website/seminars,
    and I actually have talked to him, multiple times (face to face). Once, again my interactions with these people don’t mean squat, it just shows that I have an interest in the subject.
    I have also paid my own money, to bring skeptics to his talks, and have offered (and some times they have accepted) to buy Hugh Ross materials for them.
    Once again, it does not mean squat, that I am willing to pay my Money, for my Skeptics friends, I would say it is “evidence” that at a “popular Level”, I have been engaged.

  6. You have probably already read… “The Priviledged Planet”, but
    What the heck, here is my question for you…
    Let’s assume that there are quite a few people out there, that think Somebody was involved in this short clip.
    If You had to guess, what They are Impressed with, what do you think They would say?
    I am sure you are busy, so when you can squeeze it in, would love to hear if you are going with Somebody, or Nobody…
    But just as interesting to me, would be what You think, They would say on this.
    Have a good one, I am going to start watching the first Alien movie with my kids, they have never seen it!
    I know the clip is 8 mins, but at least I am not asking you to comment on a 2 hour debate!
    Thanks for your time!
    https://youtu.be/-mdjM4-gRGg

Let’s say that Somebody was involved. And…??? What baffles me is - what is it supposed to be evidence of, what was the point, and if there was one, why is it not mentioned in any discussion of the greater and lessor lights in the Bible? Is there some hidden code?

I presume that you feel that the exact coincidence of apparent size must mean something. But eclipses have been held to herald all sorts of hokey signs and portends that I doubt anyone now would support.

The are cool though, and welcome to the forum. My picture of the 2017 totality:

1 Like

I hear you. I was in Carbondale, IL for the 2017…, Wonderful stuff. I can give you my take on your questions, but I want @swamidass and @RonSewell. Your takes on my question here first. I’ve got lots of Homework that Josh has given me, I am thru the first 2 links that he sent. Here is what I would consider an “easy 8 min assignment” for you!

  1. What the heck, here is my question for you…
    Let’s assume that there are quite a few people out there, that think Somebody was involved in this short clip.
    If You had to guess, what They are Impressed with, what do you think They would say?
    I am sure you are busy, so when you can squeeze it in, would love to hear if you are going with Somebody, or Nobody…
    But just as interesting to me, would be what YOU THINK, THEY would say on this.
    Have a good one, I am going to start watching the first Alien movie with my kids, they have never seen it!
    I know the clip is 8 mins, but at least I am not asking you to comment on a 2 hour debate!
    Thanks for your time!
    https://youtu.be/-mdjM4-gRGg