“The” has no clear antecedent. Which position is rejected outright, and by whom?
2 Likes
@Eddie complained about not knowing exactly what it was that pro-God-Guided Evolution Christians rejected about I.D.
I asserted, with considerable confidence, that it wasn’t God as designer or the teleological aspect of ID, per se, that was being rejected.
It was this premise that was being rejected outright and completely:
“that in principle, it is at least possible that design might be detected in nature.”
While some of us might be willing to think that someone, someday, might prove otherwise… that until that day arrives claiming that design is detected by Science (or could be) is an egregious abuse of Science.
3 Likes
This is just an assertion. Why is it an egregious abuse of science?
1] science cannot control for God as a variable to be tested;
2] God’s role in guiding evolution could reside mostly in INTENTIONS and TIMING… which is beyond the reach of Science. For example, many of God’s miracles may belong to the category "without God’s miraculous assistance, it might take nature:
a. a CENTURY too long, oA.
b. a year too long, or
c. a month too long, or
d. a week too long, or
e. a day too long, or
f. a second too long.
The argument is not controlling God as a variable. The argument is design (conscious intelligence) as an inference to the best explanation of irreducibly complex structures and functional information.
If you insist on a tested mechanism against the specific scientific claims then evolution (universal common descent by mutational variation) is no longer a scientific claim.
I am ok with this but your standards must be consistent. So can we agree that science alone cannot explain the diversity of life?
An inference in this context is not scientifically definitive.
I am perfectly happy with an inference as a faith-based observation or conclusion.
But it is not Science.
2 Likes
@colewd
And THIS statement is so off-point I’m tempted to say you aren’t even correct enough to be wrong!
Support your claim. What is the mechanism and how is it tested. Darwin used the inference standard that you are now claiming is not science.
From P. Liptons 2000 paper on inference to the best explanation.
Huh!?!?
I wasn’t complaining about any such thing, at least not in this chain of question and answer. I hadn’t been talking about “pro-God-Guided Evolution Christians” at all. (It’s only George here who uses that phrase.) My original reply in this chain was responding to this question from George:
“What do you think is the most ambitious claim that I.D. can make?”
And I answered it with three points labelled a, b, and c. George then picked up on Point a and complained about it, but his complaint was unclear to me, so I asked for clarification.
Point a read:
Now he responds with:
George makes a completely illegitimate addition to Point a. Point a was restricted to the possibility of design detection; George changes the wording to “claiming that design is detected by Science (or could be)” – but “is detected” was not part of Point a, which was the point he was objecting to. So let’s rewrite his objection, without the illegitimate insertion:
“While some of us might be willing to think that someone, someday, might prove otherwise… that until that day arrives, claiming that design in principle might be detectable is an egregious abuse of Science.”
Why is the claim that design might be detectable “an egregious abuse of Science”?
Newton and Boyle, the most important founders of modern Physics and Chemistry, thought that design was in some cases detectable, or potentially detectable; I guess, in George’s books, they were guilty of “an egregious abuse of Science”.
George’s objection seems like an arbitrary declaration to the masses from the mountain. It’s sustained by no reasoning.
If it was at the time of the big bang, a femtosecond (10^-15 seconds) was too long.
Agreed. Good, precise reply.
Are you feeling okay?
You, or some of your ID friends (OR you and some of your ID friends), have wondered how Christians who DO believe in God designing creation (by any or all means) can STILL reject ID.
Well I’m telling you how that paradox
happens!
If they STILL reject ID, it is because they believe [and rightly so] that Science is not able to detect, or confirm, God’s role in design.
“Full Stop. Period. End of Discussion.”
Now, of course, i dont really mean its the end of the discussion.
But whether they are right or wrong is not nearly as important as agreeing that God IS the designer of the Cosmos!
Which claim do you think i need to support? Science cannot confirm Gods presence, God’s actions, or God’s intentions.
If Science could do any of these 3 things… We would not need philosophical proofs of God.
The mechanisms that you claim caused the diversity of life and how you will test they are valid. If you cannot do this based on you’re reasoning evolution (universal common descent along with mutational variation) is not a scientific claim by the standard you set.
Again, I am ok with this.
In this case they are rejecting something other then ID.
I can combine science and theology into a single sentence - with the understanding the science cannot prove God’s role:
"God chooses the mutations He makes either through Special Creation or through which DNA molecules he has arranged to experience changes or re-ordering.
He then applies environmental forces to make the desired mutations a benefit to producing more offspring.
The number of offspring for each genetic configuration can be quantified… thus avoiding tautological problems.
Ok. So I think we may have common ground 
You do not believe that science alone can explain the diversity of life.
1 Like
I think you are contradicting yourself here. You are claiming we cannot measure Gods actions however here you are claiming you can.
Yes, I have wondered that – but I wasn’t talking about that, and didn’t mention that, in the recent chain of argument. In the recent chain, I was merely answering your question about the minimalist claims of ID. I already explained this, in my previous post.
Yes, I understand this, but I wonder how that can simply declare that as an a priori truth, without any argument. The fact that other Christian scientists, like Newton, thought that we could discern something of God through his works, appears to have made no impression on them. But of course they don’t read Newton, or Boyle, or Kepler, any more than they read Calvin, Luther, Augustine, or Aquinas – they seem to read hardly any books (other than the Bible) published earlier than about 1985. So I shouldn’t be surprised, really, at the narrowness of their historical perspective on these subjects.
Anyhow, I have never complained when TE/EC folks have disputed particular ID arguments for design. I’ve said over and over again that such criticism of ID writers is fair game, and the ID writers should be big enough to take it. What I’ve complained about is attempts to guarantee conclusions by rigging the rules of discussion in advance, with dogmas such as “science cannot possibly detect design” or “methodological naturalism” or “it’s bad theology to try to infer anything about God from nature; only revelation is a proper source of knowledge of God”.
Finally, on your last point: In my view, it does no religious or theological good to concede that God is the designer of the cosmos, if the so-called designed cosmos looks and feels exactly like Dawkins’s cosmos in every respect. But that’s a debate for another time.
I think we have pretty well exhausted this subject, George, so can we call it a day?
Offspring can be counted.
Natural Selection can be quantified.
But Science cannot tell us God is behind any of it.
That’s the Bible’s role.