Room for Discussing Design in Evolution?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen

The science side will not entertain one possibility (intelligence aided the process of evolution) and yet wants to co-opt the word “design” from time to time, which the theologians cannot accept.

I"m not sure I agree or understand. I’m not even sure who the “science side” is. It is a fact that both science and theology are using the same word in different ways. The challenge is just being clear in which way we mean it. A true statement in one context can be false in another, just because the meaning and scope has changed. The problem arises just because we do not keep the discourse straight.

@Michael_Callen

two areas separate (NOMA style)

This is not at all NOMA style. NOMA says that science and theology are talking about different things (facts vs. values). I, rather, I am saying they are talking about the same things in different ways (scientific view vs. theological view). I also do not think that facts vs. values is a helpful distinction, or even correct.

@Michael_Callen

The theology side will not accept the evolutionary explanation unless it is complete (can account for all of the species, at the right time, in the right place) and will not clearly explain when and where (or even if) God intervened to augment the creative process of evolution.

That is not the theology side. That is the ID side.

Many theologians have no problem with evolutionary explanations, and resist the theology of ID.

@Michael_Callen

I don’t want to be defeatist, but it seems as though we are at an impasse if we want to have a universal conversation. I don’t respect one who suggests a problem without also suggesting a solution, but, to me, the only solution is to tear down the wall (NOMA) and allow the chips to fall where they may.

Already did that. NOMA is not at play here.

Also, we cannot have a universal conversation. These are separate discourse communities. They will always be different conversations, and the goal of a universal conversation is a Babel Tower. The challenge is translation.

@Michael_Callen you’ve done a good job at this…

@Michael_Callen

Emphasis mine. So, in my discussions, I’m trying to abide by the rules (as I understand them.) In doing so, I am seeing some benefits, as discussed above. It is not easy or intuitive at all. But it does explain some of the antagonism that occurs for no apparent reason.

In general you have been totally understandable and understanding. You’ve also been able to successfully push back on people overstating the science. I’m not sure what is wrong with the approach you have been taking. Continue down that path and you are going to win. Why give it up?