# The Massive Confusion On ID and Evolution

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Design\
**Created:** [November 7, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658 "2018-11-07T17:43:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [November 10, 2018, 10:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/61 "2018-11-10T22:20:41Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Aren’t both things important? To lay out what Behe means, and how we might agree or disagree with it?

Yes, certainly. But it’s equally important not to confound the two questions – what Behe means, and whether or not we agree with it. I had been addressing the question what Behe meant, and George seemed to me to be suggesting that Behe couldn’t have meant what I thought, because science can’t detect design. But Behe doesn’t accept the premise that science can’t detect design, so he could easily have meant what I thought.

But now, rereading George’s post, I realize that though I thought I understood it, I now can’t follow it very well, so I may have misunderstood him, and I’m content to drop the charge for the time being.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [November 10, 2018, 10:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/62 "2018-11-10T22:36:36Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> I asked you to wrangle @jongarvey on this particular part: he seems to want to say that it is impossible for the results to be the same - - because the natural order will not cooperate.

I think you are trying too hard to quarry Jon’s answers for particular points that you can fit into your own model. That’s why you are having trouble understanding him – not everything he is saying is meant to address your particular model of evolution. Much of what he says is for the purpose of clarifying the basic issues for everyone.

Regarding the question of perfect pool shots, I think he is saying that “the natural order will not cooperate” in the sense that natural things, especially living things, aren’t like billiard balls, which have only _one_ possible response to being struck by another billiard ball. He gives the example of the creature which turns right rather than left and dies as a result, which changes many evolutionary outcomes down the line, outcomes which depended on the survival of that creature’s genes. It’s hard to believe that even God could set up the Big Bang so as to force Eagle X to turn left rather than right at a particular moment 3 million years ago. That level of specificity isn’t contained in the information the universe started with.

Do you believe that even with a computer of unlimited calculating ability, one could design the Big Bang to force a not-yet-existent eagle to turn his head left rather than right, 14 billion years later, on planet Earth, at a particular spot on the planet, on a particular day, with its eye on a particular rodent? Do you believe that mechanical interactions of atoms and subatomic particles set in motion at the Big Bang lead to detailed future events at that level of precision? I’m highly skeptical, even if we don’t take into account quantum indeterminacy, and even more so if we do. That’s why I think the pool shot analogy, though useful in a crude way, to give a rough idea of “evolution through natural causes that is still part of a plan”, isn’t the best formulation of front-loaded design. Denton’s account in _Nature’s Destiny_ is more plausible.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 12:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/63 "2018-11-11T00:00:39Z")

</div>

@eddie

You write: “I think you are trying too hard to quarry Jon’s answers  
for particular points that you can fit into your own model. That’s why  
you are having trouble understanding him – not everything he is saying  
is meant to address your particular model of evolution. Much of what  
he says is for the purpose of clarifying the basic issues for  
everyone.”

So why is it that I understand what Dan writes, but sometimes I have  
no clue what @Jongarvy is writing? I think the difference is, Dan is  
a little more grounded in the “here and now”, while Jon is always  
eager to explore the “what ifs”. This is a noble and commendable  
inclination.

But it starts going a little sideways when Jon attempts to translate  
the “what if” into the “probably is”, or even once in a while into “it  
has to be”.

Let’s look at your own (inscrutable) defense of an assertion made by Jon:  
“He gives the example of the creature which turns right rather than  
left and dies as a result, which changes many evolutionary outcomes  
down the line, outcomes which depended on the survival of that  
creature’s genes. It’s hard to believe that even God could set up the  
Big Bang so as to force Eagle X to turn left rather than right at a  
particular moment 3 million years ago.”

If a creature has Free Will, it will do what it chooses. If a  
creature doesn’t have Free Will… it is part of the causal chain of  
events. You yourself said that Behe’s Pool Shot Model only applied  
up to, but not including, the arrival of Humans (who have Free Will).  
I accepted your suggested limitation on the use of the Pool Shot Model  
as described by Behe. That seems fine to me. If you feel that you  
should include other creatures as having “choices” (by whatever  
metaphysical options are available to you, Eddie), that poses no  
problem to me. The Behe model up until the first arrival of such  
creatures.

If you have read my recent posting on “Gold Balls” (Gold pool balls  
indicating agents with Free Will) to my own personal revision of the  
Pool Shot Model, then you know that I am interested in accommodating  
Free Will in a universe filled with natural lawfulness.

You are interested in promoting Denton’s own model for presenting a  
Universe with natural laws and free will agents. Eventually, I will  
get to the book you recommend. In the meantime, feel free to offer  
some broad strokes of the Denton model. No analogy is perfect. If  
there is a way to improve on the analogy, I’m eager to hear about it.  
But only as eager as you are eager to share your personal insights  
into the Denton model.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/64 "2018-11-11T15:26:49Z")

</div>

I have followed all the subsequent discussion, but …

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> This **IS** a legitimate category of speculation.
> 
> So there is always going to be a need to qualify Evolution (or Common Descent) to distinguish the scenario that involves God from the version that does not.

Until there is a theory of design that can separate itself from TOE, all there can be is speculation (or belief). We don’t need a second name for evolution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/65 "2018-11-11T16:40:07Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Until there is a theory of design that can separate itself from TOE, all there can be is speculation (or belief). We don’t need a second name for evolution.

@Dan_Eastwood (cc: @swamidass ),

Now that i know your position, all i need is to know exactly how you meant it: 😃

1. do you consider  
“Unguided-Evolution”  
(versus)  
“Guided-Evolution”

to be the use of TWO (2) names?

Or is it the use of ONE (1) name, with undesirable or un-wanted qualifiers?

If Geneal.Adam is a group of scenarios designed to explain the best way to formulate a Theological stance on Evolution, do you agree that we need the qualifiers?

If you reject the use of such qualifiers, what would be your recommendation for how to proceed with Creationists - - who reject scientific ToE because it lacks a theological dimension?

Im all ears!.. channeled right through my android screen!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/66 "2018-11-11T20:49:54Z")

</div>

@Dan_Eastwood,

The suspense is killing me!

I look forward to knowing whether im perfectly on point, or if, in your opinion, i need to use a different term.

When this has come up before, and i expressed interest in using a different terminology, I was disappointed by the answer: “call it Creationism”.

I think you will agree that this is not a helpful solution. If i were to use a different term, it needs to be tersely distinctive enough that:  
[1] it is easy to use in sentences, and yet

[2] its meaning is grasped relatively intuitively!

So which shall it be?

Thanks!

😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 11:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/67 "2018-11-11T23:31:05Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> The suspense is killing me!

I was watching the end of Daredevil season 3. Suspence was killing me more! 🙂

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Dan\_Eastwood (cc: swamidass ),

Do you really have to tag Joshua for everything? It’s like you want to tattle on me for being agnostic or something … (Pretty sure he already knows) 😉

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> … to be the use of TWO (2) names?  
> Or is it the use of ONE (1) name, with undesirable or un-wanted qualifiers?

In the context of science no qualifier should be necessary. TE generally isn’t making sciencific claim, so I don’t have much to complain about that qualifier. Likewise for Geneological Adam.

If Creationists (specifically YEC) reject scientific ToE because it lacks a theological dimension, this is a theological problem, not a scientific problem. We need to educate them about science, OR educate them about theology, perhaps both.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/68 "2018-11-11T23:37:37Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Do you really have to tag Joshua for everything? It’s like you want to tattle on me for being agnostic or something … (Pretty sure he already knows) 😉

@Dan_Eastwood

I was just mentioning to Joshua that i didnt even know who his allies were any more.

Until i find at least one other person who is 100% on board with Geneal.Adam… the only person i can confirm things with is Joshua.

Do you know any non-moderator who supports all the planks of Geneal.Adam?

I think its just @jongarvey … once i get my last question to him stowed away.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/69 "2018-11-11T23:40:45Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> We need to educate them about science, OR educate them about theology, perhaps both.

@Dan_Eastwood

“Geneal.Adam” is a theological construct. So we cant just call it Evolution. If i JUST call it Evolution… then by definition God is not involved.

So… i either QUALIFY the term… or i use a different term. Which do you prefer?

This isnt going away by ignoring it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/70 "2018-11-12T00:01:22Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Do you know any non-moderator who supports all the planks of Geneal.Adam?

@Dan_Eastwood

So im guessing that @jongarvey IS the one non-moderator 99%-100% on board with “Geneal.Adam”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/71 "2018-11-12T00:09:35Z")

</div>

All the [@moderators](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/moderators) seem to support it 100% as much as I’d expect them too. I don’t care if they personally believe it. They all think it is an important and legitimate option for the public to consider. Nothing else is required of anyone.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 12:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/72 "2018-11-12T00:11:30Z")

</div>

@swamidass,

This goes without saying.

I havent even raised the question about Moderators.

My last 2 posts on the topic soecifically asked about non-moderators!

😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/73 "2018-11-12T02:01:48Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> All the [@moderators](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/moderators) seem to support it 100% as much as I’d expect them too. I don’t care if they personally believe it.

I couldn’t disprove it, and I think that is the point. 🙂

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> This isnt going away by ignoring it.

OK, but let me think about it for a year or two … 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 2:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/74 "2018-11-12T02:30:57Z")

</div>

@Dan_Eastwood

You wrote: “OK, but let me think about it for a year or two …”

Wow… everyone is being so cute this evening.  
So you are going to leave the bomb ticking away on the floor? If you  
have a recommendation for how to distinguish the theological  
description of Evolution from the purely scientific description, now  
is the time to share it with me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 2:59am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/75 "2018-11-12T02:59:25Z")

</div>

I think I’m beginning to understand how “Frantic” got into your title. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/76 "2018-11-12T03:28:40Z")

</div>

@Dan_Eastwood

Hmmm… so that’s why I kept putting Joshua’s link into my posts.

I have ZERO understanding of where some of your comments come from. You seem immensely fair and sincere… but when you talk about not making enemies out of Atheists … how am I supposed to understand what you mean? I have YECs knifing me in the back with their rhetoric, and you are worried about what Atheists will say?

When I was recently on an Atheist/Theist group on Facebook, it took me three times to explain each feature of Geneal.Adam before they could suddenly see that I wasn’t a crackpot bible thumper.

From your particular third-party perspective, is there any peer of yours that would be interested in “bending” the YEC mind-set towards science - - without also wanting to strip him of his religion? You can see that this is not an Atheist program, right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Djordje](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/djordje/32/3673_2.png) [@Djordje](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Djordje)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 3:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/77 "2018-11-12T03:43:13Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> I was watching the end of Daredevil season 3. Suspence was killing me more!

Ohhhh, spoil it! Spoil it!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 5:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/78 "2018-11-12T05:13:49Z")

</div>

Daredevil dies.

And no asks me for spoilers twice! 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2018, 5:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/79 "2018-11-12T05:23:18Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> I have ZERO understanding of where some of your comments come from. You seem immensely fair and sincere… but when you talk about not making enemies out of Atheists … how am I supposed to understand what you mean? I have YECs knifing me in the back with their rhetoric, and you are worried about what Atheists will say?

Whoops! I was talking about not making enemies out of theists. That might be the source of confusion.

There are some atheists who don’t particularly like me, and the feeling is mutual.

Where are these YECs? Let’s gang up in them! 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658/80 "2018-11-13T18:15:24Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> When did you start getting so confused about the term non-random?  
> When Behe says “non-Random”… it doesn’t necessarily mean “special  
> creation”, right?

Behe has stated outright that he believes the designer is the Christian God. It isn’t a stretch to say that Behe is putting God forward as directly causing these mutations.

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> And when you listen to his Pool Shot Scenario (you  
> **HAVE** heard his own words on the video, right?) … he clearly  
> talks about God arranging all the pool balls of the Cosmos at the  
> moment of Creation, the Big Bang! And it is this arrangement, this  
> planned out sequence of pool ball collisions, that drive the model.

This contradicts his claims that seeing an IC system evolving in the lab would falsify Intelligent Design.

> [@](#):
>
> I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.  
> [Michael Behe](https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-falsification/)

If we are talking about the Pool Shot scenario then there is nothing stopping the bacterial flagellum evolving in the lab.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-massive-confusion-on-id-and-evolution/2658.md?page=5)