Theistic Evolution

by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  binadub - thanks for the history of the ID movement, it was intereting but it doesn't change the fact that it is all creationism in disguise.

  I defined how I was using the term ID in my opening post so as to excuse "theistic evolution" from the same charge of pseudo-science.

  All shades of ID is a modern version of progressive creationism.

  In real space and time everything had to come into being in a particular sequence. Theistic evolutionists stand with science and affirm that there are natural explanations for every detail even if many of those answers are still unknown.

  The proponent of ID stands with Ken Ham and Dr Dino in asserting that many features of living things could not come about without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Whether its an eye, a wing, the eukaryotic cell, DNA, RNA, the flagellum either they arrived here through unguided natural processes or somebody made/created them.

  Ham & co have no embarrassment in declaring god-did-it on day six 4000 years ago. The "IDist" prefers to be ambiguous about the who and when but he is no less a creationist despite psuedo-scientific notions like specified and irreducible complexity.
• 

  binadub

  Cofty:

  Taking your advice and Googled "creationism definition":

  Dictionary definitions:

  cre·a·tion·ism

      / kri'e????n?z?m / Show Spelled [ kree- ey -sh uh -niz- uh m ] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created , substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis. 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. ============ That is definitely not accurate of the credible definitions and references I presented for ID.
  ID is not creationism, as defined, in disguise or otherwise. ~Binadub
• 

  cofty

  Binadub - I didn't say that ID is equivalent to YEC I said it was a modern version of "Progressive Creationism".

  Take the example of the bacterial flagellum - the poster child of ID.

  There was a time when it did not exist. The scientist - whether theistic evolutionist or atheist - looks for the explanation of how it evolved from simpler systems through an unguided process.

  The proponent of ID, the Young Earth Creationist and the Progressive Creationist all do the opposite. They each declare the system to be too complex and invoke Paley's Watch. Whether they say god-did-it 6000 years ago, or god-did-it many tens of thousands of years ago as part of a progressive creation, or an unknown designer did it at some unknown time, its all the same thing. Its all unscientific, it all attempts to block research and it all amounts to an argument from ignorance.

  The same argument applies to every other complex device in nature. The proponent of ID wants to progressively invoke a designer at every stage. If this is not creationism please tell me why not.
• 

  binadub

  I'm not concerned with what certain proponents of an ideology advocate or their hidden agendas. I'm concerned with the published definitions for "creationism" and "intelligent design," which I believe they can be held to.

  For a comparison of what I'm saying, in U.S. politics for example (caveat--I am totally neutral non-political so don't make me out a Republican):
  One cannot rightfully judge the Republican party and all it's advocates, as a whole, based on proponents of the "Tea Party" to claim it is fundamentalist religion and the "Tea Party" in disguise.
  Some Republicans may be Christian, Jewish, Moslems, agnostics or atheists or none of the above. Some may be rich or poor. It's irrelevant.

  In the subject of ID versus creationist, I consider myself to be pro ID by belief (based on the credible definitions I quoted), but definitely non- (possibly anti-) "creationist," based on the dictionary definitions presented above.

  ~Binadub
• 

  bohm

  binadub: I am a bit surpriced you simply ignored my previous post...
• 

  cofty

  binadub - If you would discuss the practical differences as you see it instead of semantic dictionary definitions it would be a far more interesting and productive discussion.

  It sounds as if you are being deliberately vague.

  All shades of ID share the common feature of inserting an external agent to explain complex features of the natural world. This is anti-scientific. The minuitae of their differences are tedious and irrelevant.
• 

  binadub

  I keep saying I'm not gonna do this. (We just seem at a mental/communication deadlock going in circles.) East is east and west is west . . .
  (What is it Einstein says is insanity . . . ?)

  Bohm: Sorry-I didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring you. I think you are arguing science. I'm not arguing science. I'm arguing that "intelligent design" on it's own is not science and more importantly in my view it is not the popular definition of "creationism."That it is not creationism is the biggest thing I'm arguing. By definition ID is nothing more than belief that the unknown original cause of creation was by a supreme intelligent agent. I happen to believe that. I do not believe in "creationism" as it is defined.
  Relative to the point you were making (if I understand it), I do tend to believe that there is a mathematical point of probability at which coincidence enters the realm of impossible, therefore it must have been "designed." But that's not what I'm arguing in this thread. What I'm arguing is that ID is not creationism, period. They are two different things.

  Cofty: It's not my intent to make an interesting discussion. ID is vague, but it is not creationism. Creationism is more precise so undoubtedly would be a more interesting debate with atheists.
  You're correct when you say I am being vague--that is, if you are referring to my saying that I'm pro-ID. When I say that, I'm not being specific about my personal perspective of the Creator. All I'm saying is that ID, by definition, is the premise that the original cause of the universe is by design of an intelligent agent. That's all. Intelligent Design does not try to define the intelligent agent, it is--as you say--vague. And it's just like people have a lot of different religious ideas that span the gammut from deism to radical Al Quedaism and all that's in between--the common denominator is belief in a supreme intelligence. That is irrespective of what the proponents of Discovery Institute intend or what their personal religions or motives are relative to employing the theory (popular sense) of Intelligent Design.
  What I will say is that there is an exJW community (maybe others as well) who keep insisting that ID is creationism. It is not, and that is all my argument is about.

  All shades of ID share the common feature of inserting an external agent to explain complex features of the natural world.

  That I agree with. ID is the opinion (belief) that nature is by design, not by random chance. No argument. (When you say natural world, think "Nature." )
  But that does NOT make it fit the definition of fundamentalist "Creationism" as defined in the dictionary and as defined by ID opponents.

  This is anti-scientific. The minuitae of their differences are tedious and irrelevant.

  No--it is non-scientific. It has nothing to do scientific study--as science is defined. ID is philosophical theory (opinion) about origin and nature.
  Philosophically, it is merely the opposite of atheism. Some proponents do try to illustrate their point of view using mathematical probability, for example, and I personally consider that to be viable argumentation. It's open to debate and rebuttal.

  It is interesting that Stephen Meyer's arguments have been presented for debate on Francis Collins' Web page. Surely that indicates he has some scientific credibility. But that's an aside.

  Google "Science definition"
  sci·ence
     [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
  noun
  1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: e.g. the mathematical sciences.
  2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
  3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
  4. systematized knowledge in general.
  5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

  ID does not fit that definition, does not pretend to fit that definition, and is not opposed to science and discovery.
  Presenting argument that is not scientific or happens to be incorrect is not anti-science (as being opposed to science).

  Your insistence that some scientists that you disagree with are anti-science is biased imo. Surely you would not say that Stephen Meyer, et.al., is not a scientist--would you?

  ~Binadub
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Philosophically, it is merely the opposite of atheism.

  ID is not philosophically opposite to atheism. Theism is philosophically opposite. You can be a theist and not believe in ID.
• 

  cofty

  I'm pro-ID. When I say that, I'm not being specific about my personal perspective of the Creator. All I'm saying is that ID, by definition, is the premise that the original cause of the universe is by design of an intelligent agent. That's all. - binadub

  No that's not ID at all.

  Lets get specific. Do you believe that any feature of the natural world is too complex to be explained by a naturalisitc process and needed the intervention in real time and space of an intelligent agent?

  If you do you are a creationist. Not as nutty as Ken Ham and Dwayne Gish perhaps but in the same unscientific camp.

  If all you mean is that evolution is sufficient to explain all of life but you believe there was an original cause behind it all then you have no common ground with ID. You are a theistic evolutionist and you may want to consider the points in the OP.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  No that's not ID at all.

  Indeed, it is not. ID makes specific claims going beyond the claim that God is the originator of the Universe.