Fair enough. I will take you on your word.
1 Like
I was responding to @cwhenderson. I think he was referring to random mutations… I know adaption under natural selection is not exactly random (.The environmental change is random… though adaptation to the environment is not).
Perhaps you could try and publish a critique… They claim to be open to it.
I have published critiques.
Environment change is not entirely random either…nothing is entirely random except perhaps quantum noise.
Can you share a link?.
Sure… Non-directional… not goal oriented. The environment does not change with any purpose jn mind.
How do you know that? Does not God send the rain?
1 Like
Isn’t that a theological position?
Do scientists view evolution as goal oriented. Am I representing the scientific theory unfairly?
What it exposes is that science can see something as no-goal directed, while from a theological point of view it can be goal directed.
1 Like
True… however if goal directedness becomes a necessity to explain phenomenon, the theory fails.(or at least needs to be modified).
I keep this distinction in mind. If someone holds to the position that evolution needs God/an intelligent agency for it to work… Then I see it as intelligent design. That’s how I differentiate between the two.
This is an idiosyncratic and ahistorical definition. By this definition, I am an ID proponent and so is BioLogos even as we are well know for opposing ID.
It is historical. One of the basic claims of evolution is that natural causes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
ID denies that and posits that an intelligent agency is required.
Do you believe it’s impossible to explain biological diversity through natural causes alone?
No, it isn’t. That is well accepted by IDists. And ID has been around since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks with their telic thoughts. Mike Gene says this in “The Design Matrix” and it is also well known amongst IDists.
That said BioLogos seems to say that we cannot detect God’s work and that it all looks like nature did it even though they “know” God was responsible. I thought the main gripe with ID was that we say we can detect telic processes and you say that is false.
I am very interested in this. Please give me specific examples of this occurring.
1 Like
I know you like Dawkins, but he does blur the boundary between the claims of evolutionary science and his anti-theism agenda. He has even gone on the records saying this is an intentional strategy.
1 Like
No. There is no place where that claim is made. Science does not make metaphysical claims of sufficiency.
I believe it is impossible to explain anything by natural causes alone, and that science does not even try to do such a thing.
2 Likes
Oh brother. So now you are playing both sides against the middle?
Christians work with science professionally as not God related.
In matters of faith, Christian evolutionists invoke the role of God… but thus is a THEOLOGICAL view of evolution.
ID… unless it specifically denies the possible role of God … is always potentially THEOLOGICAL in nature.
So when not invoking God it is the Prometheus Scenario that we see in movies.
When a Christian talks about God using nature to make rain… it is a theological position… not a scientific one. But you can’t dismiss it simply because scientists don’t invoke God on the topic of rain making!
1 Like
Dawkins himself and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science are human rights advocacy groups. He is NOT doing science any longer. Science education yes. Making claims about new discoveries in evolutionary science - no.
This is not correct. You have zero warrant to insist on such an interoretation.
It is only necessary when entering a THEOLOGICAL discussion on science.
I don’t think @Ashwin_s s being argumentative. I think he might be genuinely confused by the approach I am taking. In his defense, it is very odd to those who only hear the ID narrative. People like me are not supposed to exist.
1 Like
I have had a week of this discussion with Ash at biologos. He refuses to accept any explanation… almost certainly because he knows semantics is an island that allows himself to avoid contact with any real phenomenon.
He is not confused… he has shifted his terminology so he doesnt have to listen to a word. At some point we will need to put him in a status where only moderator-approved posts can be published.
@Ashwin_s is no where near provoking moderator action.
Can you parse out the terminology change rather than just decrying his points?