Darrell,
Once again, I appreciate your peaceable spirit and want to respond in a like-spirit. However, I’m sure you are aware of how troubled many serious Christians are regarding your solution to relegate the Bible to the place where it can only talk authoritatively on spiritual things. As Bruce Malone has pointed out:
“If we can’t trust the Bible on the physical plane, how can we expect anyone to trust it on the spiritual?” (Rough quote)
Instead, I would greatly prefer it if you would consider another way of reconciling your faith with evolution:
Could you instead live with the tension created by believing both in evolution and Scripture, without compromising the latter? This solution would be far more acceptable to the Christian world. Let’s face it – the other (depriving Scripture of its say) is just unacceptable for many reasons.
I think that we all live with tensions. I certainly can’t reconcile everything that I see around me with Scripture, even with its spiritual teachings! However, I don’t deny my observations, but I also don’t allow them to rise above what I’m convinced must remain preeminent – Scripture!

Darrell,
It seems that BioLogos is erasing my comments. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if you would be transparent about this. I don’t want to waste my time if you are just going to erase what I’ve written.

Daniel,
Our comment records don’t show any erased comments. It may be a technical problem with the commenting system itself. Please try reloading the comment section after a few minutes.

Thanks BioLogos,
In fact, it seems that my two comments at “On Feeling at Home” were restored!
But any comment to my response above?

By the same token, those who believe in gradual creation must not look down on those who hold to a sudden creation view, as though they are somehow less intelligent.”

That’s sort of a black and white presentation, but what is a person supposed to do with, say, Ray Comfort who clearly utilizes unintelligent arguments without generally learning anything (he did apologize for one faux pas, recently, however), or with people who actually know nothing about evolution but call it ridiculous or evil?
All I can figure is that the quote above is all very pious and idealized, but tells us very little about the complexities of actual social situations. While I’m no believer, I can’t imagine why anyone would refrain from, for example, noting that a stupid argument repeated by people who don’t bother to hear any response is worthy of being called a stupid argument.
And since I’ve rarely seen opposition to evolution that didn’t involve dishonesty regarding both science and scientists, I cannot imagine how an honest answer wouldn’t point out (degree of politeness depending upon context) that such attacks are inappropriate and lack honesty, whether done through ignorance or otherwise.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Daniel Mann,
As far as I understand it, it is not necessarily that Biologos relegates scripture to only the natural realm. People who hold biologos accept plenty of things from scripture concerning the natural world. It is just that Scripture doesn’t make *generalizations* about the behavior of things in the natural world, as this is the realm of the sciences. I don’t know of anybody who accepts Biologos and doesn’t accept Jesus’ resurrection and miracles, Moses parting the Red Sea, God sending fire and brimstone, etc. But even that is a little too restrictive… as even scripture makes some generalizations about the natural world, if you consider human nature to be at least partly a natural phenomenon: “judge not, lest thee be judged” and “‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him’ in case he is thirsty, give him water to drink,’for in doing so, you will pile burning coals on his head.” The bible is saturated with stuff like this, and I doubt that anybody who holds biologos would reject literal interpretations thereof.
So, in response, I understand your concern, but I think that Biologos already accomodates it. Biologos does accept the whole of scripture and the whole of science. And in parts where scripture and well-confirmed scientific theory seem to conflict, Biologos holds that it is just an apparent contradiction, and we should generally assume that God was using the “science” of the time as a means of communicating spritual truths.

Glen Davidson said:
“All I can figure is that the quote above is all very pious and idealized, but tells us very little about the complexities of actual social situations. While I’m no believer, I can’t imagine why anyone would refrain from, for example, noting that a stupid argument repeated by people who don’t bother to hear any response is worthy of being called a stupid argument”
Glen,
I love your comment because it highlights what is different about the church. We are called in the church to be the Body of Christ to a world that needs desperately to know and experience the love of God. This is our reason for being. This is our mission in life. We can be patient with people like Daniel (bless his heart), even though he runs down science without (by his own admission) knowing the first thing about it. The more I read what Daniel writes (and admittedly, I don’t have time to read everything) the more I like his sincerity and the quality of his intellect.
I hope you can see what we are doing. We are not burying our head in the sand and ignoring the Daniels of this world. We are pouring our heart and soul into this project of showing them why they are wrong and that they are causing a great deal of harm to the church, especially young people who do go out and do what Daniel refuses to do—learn science. (See previous blogs such as “Saving Anthony” and “Saving the Children.”)
Scroll through our website, Glen. You’ll see that we are very frank about what does and doesn’t make sense in light of what science has shown us over the past 200 years. We are not idealistic and pious. However, we have some special responsibilities in the church: the frankness has to be the same kind of frankness that you would have with your best friend. It has to be the kind of admonishment that keeps you together and doesn’t rip you apart. That is the greatest defining character of the church…and that is the “social situation” you are observing here.
Darrel

Darrell,
Now you’re being quite uncharitable:
“I hope you can see what we are doing. We are not burying our head in the sand and ignoring the Daniels of this world. We are pouring our heart and soul into this project of showing them why they are wrong and that they are causing a great deal of harm to the church, especially young people who do go out and do what Daniel refuses to do—learn science.”
I think I’ll have to take back my praise of your irenic spirit! Although I am not versed in science, it didn’t require any great learning for the child to cry out, “The King has no clothing on!” Perhaps going through your studies in the university has blinded you to the nakedness of Darwinism. Perhaps this discussion requires a pair of “un-trained” and un-indoctrinated eyes?
I would be delighted to study science, contrary to your dismisssal that I “refuse” to learn science. However, you fail to recognize the nature of the beast. We must take on faith so much of our “learning.” It would require years before I could even lay my hands on one piece of evidence and evaluate it responsibly, if that is at all possible within this horribly biased ghetto of the way science is done.

Thanks for sharing that page. Because of our natural personality styles, we all process information differently. Some of us are “big picture” people who are more likely to agree quickly without thinking about the details too much. Other people are very slow to change and need time to think about every minute detail. There is no right way to change and to improve in faith.
As far as coming to know God through Christ, there is so much to learn, understand and interpret. I think that our interpretation or perception of scripture can frequently depend upon our state of mind at the time of the reading. That is what makes the Word of God so wonderful. One piece of scripture being read by millions of people who each interprets a little bit differently. Miraculous!
One thing that I like about church is the hearing of scripture multiple times over the course of my lifetime. I’m amazed at my own interpretation of scripture and how much it changes as I change and mature.

Hi Glen
I am very frustrated with what Ray “crocoduck” Comfort is doing. I almost wonder if he really is an anti theist trying to make christianity look bad!
Around ten years ago Ray came to debate someone from Minnesota Atheists. I heard him on the radio a few times and thought he sounded confident of his positions, so I was really looking forward to seeing him beat this guy with some persuasive arguements.
What I heard instead was a rehash of the arguement from design and his personal testimony. Then when his opponent had his turn he brought up all kinds of objections to the faith, and asked why there was not more evidence.
When it was Rays turn again he did not adress any of the arguements, he just started preaching at the audience about how bad we are and hell fire stuff. By the end, me, a born again believer, was rooting for the atheist!
Now this stuff he is doing on his blog thinking that he has refuted atheism by coming up with his own version of the theory of evolution that is nutty as can be, then knocking it down! :rolling my eyes:
I have plenty of friends that are creationists, and I think they are wrong, but that is just their belief, they are not hurting anyone, so I can get along with them fine. It is when they go on the attack using questionable means, Those are the problem ones…

“By the same token, those who believe in gradual creation must not look down on those who hold to a sudden creation view, as though they are somehow less intelligent.”
well this is really the hardest thing, because they are either less intelligent or less educated or (most likely) willfully ignorant. this is the hardest scenario to respect (hear no evil see no evil speak no evil). cover your eyes and it will go away.
i can’t respect this position – so in the end I look down upon them.

It seems that BioLogos is erasing my comments. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if you would be transparent about this.
I doubt anybody erased your comments. The BeliefNet comment system is a good example of Unintelligent Design

“We must take on faith so much of our “learning.”” — For someone who admits knowing absolutely nothing about science, you sure sound confident in your opinions about it. On the contrary, the natural sciences depend on a rational methodology that removes as many unfounded assumptions as possible and seeks only the most parsimonious explanations of observed phenomena.
Creationsim, on the other hand, takes the data and forces it to fit a predetermined conclusion based on a rigid inerpretation of Scripture. In doing so, it posits multitudes of unfounded assumptions (otherwise known as special pleading) that raise infinitely more questions than they answer. If you ever bothered to educate yourself in the natural sciences, you would see the difference.
“It would require years before I could even lay my hands on one piece of evidence and evaluate it responsibly, if that is at all possible within this horribly biased ghetto of the way science is done.” — Bias? You mean like having to adhere to a strict statement of faith that says exactly how old the earth is and that there was a worldwide flood and that species are not related? You mean that kind of bias? Please. I’m sure whatever city you live in has a museum of natural history. Spend the afternoon there without your blinders and you can see and evaluate things for yourself.

Darrell,
Was Karl Giberson doing what you call for in this piece, which was full of personal attacks?
http://scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot.com/2009/06/rhetoric-vs-science.html
Here is John West’s reply:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/wheres_the_dialogue_alas_colle.html

“Was Karl Giberson doing what you call for in this piece, which was full of personal attacks?”
I read the entire thing and couldn’t find one single personal attack.
Care to be more specific?

Peeling Dragon Skin
He accuses Behe et al of intentional dishonesty:

The Faith+Evolution site, like most of the products from the Discovery Institute is slick, well-resourced, rhetorically clever, profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science. Take the opening video, with vignettes from Michael Behe, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, and others. The carefully crafted impression that viewers get from the video is that these scholars represent a viable scientific position that is both held by a meaningful group of scientists—what they optimistically refer to as a “growing minority”—and will be explicated on the site, if viewers choose to dig deeper. But this is completely false, and these confident spokesmen know it. Here is how they know it.

He also misrepresents ID repeatedly. Did you read West’s reply?

Gordon (and other TEs),
I will overlook the ad hominem attacks and return to the biases of the evol-establishment and their abuse of the “evidence.”
I have my students place ten random dots on the board and demonstrate that, even though they are random, I can connect them in an infinite number of ways to produce an infinite number of patterns, none of which actually has any reality inherent to those random dots.
This thought experiment can be expanded by asking the students to place several hundred random dots on the board. If I were an artist, I could draw any image that I so desired by using selected dots and drawing lines through them.
What does this have to do with “common descent?” Everything in the world! If patterns can be created where there were no patterns, then a case for the pattern of “common descent” can easily be created where there is no case.
Add to this the fact that masses of money and manpower are being committed for the purpose of proving and expanding the theory of evolution and also for promoting it to a skeptical public. Consequently, they are unearthing tons of “findings,” many of which can conveniently be overlooked if they don’t fit into the portrait that evolution is trying to draw.
These tons of findings are like thousands of dots on the board which can be connected in an infinite number of ways to produce whatever portrait you so desire, as long as you are selective about the dots that you use.
According to scientist Bruce Malone, this is just what the evolution establishment is doing:
“The strongest evidence that these fossil finds have been misinterpreted is the fact that erectus-type [extinct upright apes] skulls (closely related to modern human skull) have been found in the same rock layers as australopithecines (Lucy) [which are supposed to pre-date erectus-types], while other homo erectus skulls have been found right up to contemporary times, along with modern man.” (Censored Science: The Suppressed Evidence, 27)
If this is the case, Darwinists shouldn’t designate homo erectus as a missing link between humankind and the proto-apes. It can’t be a link if it had been the same all along. However, if you leave out some of the dots, you can make it look like an ancestral link. Malone continues,
“Whenever human activity, artifacts, or fossils are found deep in rock layers where they shouldn’t be, the evidence is classified as “non-human.” Fully human footprints have been found in the same rock layers as Lucy [the proto-ape, proto-human], as have evidences of fully modern human activities (the use of tools, the burial of the dead, etc.) All of this evidence is simply ignored or attributed to man’s ape-like ancestors.”
If the evidence doesn’t follow the evolutionary pattern of common descent, it’s either coerced into saying something it doesn’t say or simply ignored. The dots that don’t fit neatly into the portrait are discarded. Malone continues:
“In similar fashion, when erectus-like skulls – with ‘low-end’ [ape-like] brain size, eyebrow ridges, or thick jaws – are found in the same rock layers as modern man, they [the ape-like skulls] are explained away as human variation, the result of pathological (disease) or environmental causes. Yet similar skulls found in the sediment layers, which have been assigned old dates are proclaimed pre-human ancestors.”
In other words, with so many “findings” to select from and the prerogative of interpreting them in such varied and unrestrained ways, the Darwinist can “prove” anything he wants. Dots can be made into anyone’s cheering section.
You charge that we creationists coerce evidence into our paradigm. However, if you leave yourself out of this picture, you are being hypocritical.

Jude 1:
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.
They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
///
Sooner or later, we will be shown who and what B-L guys are really representing.
My guess is more liberal and progressive social theologians and what Jude represents and warns us about in his letter on false teachers.
So far it’s a good show but with some alarming dialogue and a dangerous plot. Sooner or later there will be an unmasking and we can get to more serious things than having to care about our once being monkeys.
Do not the modern day Israelites once a year make a tent of sticks for God to dwell in? A new version quicker thinking ape was chosen for God’s spirit to be manifest?
The celebration of Sukkot tells of a God that builds His own dwelling among His creation of his created things.
From slime to fish to monkeys to Adam. OK. Next. In the blink of an Eternal eye here we are.
Evolution is as meaningless to eternity, as a pine tree’s branches (and its billions of years becoming a pine) are to a starving child.
There is only one Gospel.

Well, Behe does sing a different song when under oath — as you can see by reading his testimony in Dover. Funny how the threat of purgery does that. So I’d say Karl is merely stating the obvious: that these people are misleading and they should (and do when under oath) know better.

“I have my students place ten random dots on the board and demonstrate that, even though they are random, I can connect them in an infinite number of ways to produce an infinite number of patterns, none of which actually has any reality inherent to those random dots.”
Too bad the evidence for evolution is not just random dots or you might have an argument. For the 30 major biological groups, there are 10^38 different ways to “connect the dots” in terms of a rooted nested heirarchy. If they were random, then any of these patterns would just as likely as any other. But for some reason, all lines of evidence converge into the same pattern. Apart from evolution, there is no reason for this. Now when you get down the very tips of the branches on the tree of life, there are some difficulties resolving phylogenies between closely related organisms – especially with single-celled bacteria that can exchange genetic material across species. But just taking the 30 major groups into account, the odds of drawing the exact same pattern with various independent lines of evidence are 1 and 10^38.
Until you actually take the time to learn about evolution, you will continue to make stupid comments like this. And yes, I said stupid. For months you have been arguing against something that, by your own admission, you have absolutely no clue about. I once found myself in that same position, so I decided to take a few months off and study evolution for myself. I suggest you do the same. Even if you remain unconvinced, you will at least be able to formulate a cogent arguement.

Gordon,
You said,
Well, Behe does sing a different song when under oath
Now would you like to be specific and give examples?

Gordon,
I think you misunderstood my argument. I wasn’t suggesting that the dots aren’t real. Instead, I was focusing on what we make of the dots and the arbitrary patterns we derive from them. I also pointed out how the dots (pieces of evidence) can be coerced into forming patterns that just aren’t there.
When you reference all of the lines of evidence that come together in order to prove your point, you are merely offering yourself as an example of the very danger that I had pointed out – our ability to coerce the dots into the pattern we want to see!
I also alluded to how we can ascribe characteristics to the individual dots (findings) that are strictly a matter of arbitrary interpretation.
In order to overcome these dangers, you have to set up rigorous controls that demonstrate that you are using the evidences in a responsible way. However, you have repeatedly dismissed these very valid concerns.
You may continue to call me “stupid,” but this will not address the problems inherent in your argumentation.

The dots put on the board were done so via intelligent design.

Daniel,
“Instead, I was focusing on what we make of the dots and the arbitrary patterns we derive from them.”
If you think scientists interpret data the same way somebody interprets modern art, then your grasp of science is even worse than I previously thought. When it comes the basic evidence for evolution, the patterns are real. There is nothing subjective about the FACT that mammals do not appear in the geologic column below the first appearence of Reptiles; or that flowering plants do not appear below the first appearence of seeded plants. Ditto for the various morphological and molecular phylogenies, the patterns of biogeography, the isotope ratios in the earth’s crust, etc…
A better example of the kind of conjecture you are referring to is the Ancient Alien Theory that I wrote about a few weeks ago.
“I also pointed out how the dots (pieces of evidence) can be coerced into forming patterns that just aren’t there.” — which is exactly why the scientific community has a built-in system of checks and balances called “peer review”. Scientists mercilessly scrutinize eachother’s work for just this sort of bias. If there is even a hint of wishful thinking, the offending party is confronted and asked to employ more rigorous controls. Not only are the results made public, but the assumptions and controls as well. This allows other teams of scientists who might we working along similar lines to replicate the experiements and cross check the data.

Regarding Behe’s testimony under oath, you can read the entire thing in the link above (the cross examination is the best part). The following I quickly grabbed from WP to highlight a few examples…
Under cross examination, Behe conceded that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of ‘theory’ as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modeling of evolution with Snoke had, in fact, shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years. This would happen even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

I have my students place ten random dots on the board and demonstrate that, even though they are random, I can connect them in an infinite number of ways to produce an infinite number of patterns, none of which actually has any reality inherent to those random dots.

That makes as much sense as writing 10 Bible verses on the board and putting in different orders. I really feel sorry for your students!
btw, I suppose you thing crime labs are arbitrary and bogus?

I meant to say,
That makes as much sense as writing 10 Bible verses on the board and putting them in different orders. I really feel sorry for your students!

Gordon,
In your earlier post, you stated that Behe lied, but told the truth under oath. Do you have examples of where he said one thing not under oath and another thing under oath? Otherwise, you should take back the mean accusation.
During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of ‘theory’ as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.
So? He then explained that the theory was discredited. Lots of theories have been discredited. They don’t stop being theories. You misrepresent him by not giving the full context. Very common ridicule by the evolution lobby. Isn’t that exactly what Darrel is saying should not be done?
Under cross examination, Behe conceded that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
So? You don’t seem to understand what ID sets out to do or what it is all about. It is about design detection. Should we throw out the Big Bang because we don’t have “detailed rigorous accounts” of how it occurred?
Nothing in this supports your claim that Michael Behe is a liar. Please take it back.

PDS,
If you read any of Behe’s books, and then read his testimony under oath, you will see that they are mutally exclusive. He said one thing in his books, and another on trial. I personally don’t think that Behe is a liar, he is just so attached to his discredited hypothesis that he has a bad case of confirmation bias. By the way, he does believe in common decent (all living things share a common ancestor.)
Also, you need to read a book on physics if you really think that we don’t have detailed account of how the Big Bang occured.
ID isn’t really about design detection, and really evolutionary biology is just as much about design detection. Natural selection designs things to fit their environment, so all biologists expect to see design in nature. If natural selection didn’t design things it wouldn’t work. ID wants to steal that idea and say that if something is designed it must be a miracle.
Really ID just says “since this is really complicated it must be a miracle” or “since science can’t completely understand this system right now it must be supernaturally designed.” Behe brought forth several examples of supposed “irreducible complexity”, but they have been thoroughly debunked as science has progressed.
Intelligent Design is a science stopper, it just says “this is complex, must be a miracle, end of story.” Really it explains nothing. By the way, I was a young earth creationist who loved Behe’s books until recently, when I objectively looked at the evidence for evolution myself, so I understand his arguements.

Dan,
If you read any of Behe’s books, and then read his testimony under oath, you will see that they are mutally exclusive.
Please be specific. These general attacks on Behe’s character with no specific back up are simply ugly. And it is rather ironic, given Darrel Falk’s post.

PDS,
I am surprised that you are defending Behe without even being familiar with what he wrote. You should just read his book “Darwin’s Black Box” (referred to as DBB from here on out) and then read the transcripts of the Dover trial, you’ll see what we are talking about.
Here are a couple examples. In DBB Behe says that no peer reviewed article has explained how a complex biochemical system evolved, or even might have evolved. He was shown numerous examples of these articles during the trial, but he said they didn’t prove evolution, because they where theoretical, even though he specifically said in DBB that there weren’t even theoretical guesses.
Behe said that not one paper had been published to explain how the immune system evolved. In the trial he was shown dozens of papers, several books, and chapters from college textbooks on the evolution of the immune system. He admitted that he had read some of them, but then said they weren’t good enough. But originally he had said that they didn’t exist, not that they weren’t good enough.
As Gordon pointed out earlier, some research that Behe used to try to back up ID actually said that a complex system under the harshest conditions could have evolved in about 20,000 years. Behe was involved in this research and was using it to postulate the exact OPPOSITE point that the data indicated.
Behe repeatedly has said that ID is a proper scientific theory, but in the trial admitted that for ID to be considered a theory the definition of theory would have to be expanded until astrology would also be considered science.
Behe has said repeatedly that irreducible complexity can’t be explained by “Darwinism”, but in the trial admitted that it is possible that irreducibly complex systems might be able to be formed through natural selection.
Behe has said that DBB was peer-reviewed to a standard higher than research journal articles. He doesn’t like to tell everyone that that isn’t true. Several of the reviewers did bring up major problems with things in his book, but he didn’t fix them, that wouldn’t happen during the real peer review process. One of the people that Behe said peer-reviewed DBB never even saw the manuscript; he only had a 10 minute conversation with Behe’s editor and said it sounded interesting. Behe counted that as extensive peer-reviewing!
Behe has said that ID is an explanatory theory that will shed light on how things work, but then in the trial admitted that it doesn’t explain anything except for the nebulous idea that design must have been involved in some part of an “irreducibly” complex system somewhere.
These are just a few examples. I’m not saying that Behe is a liar. I think he is just so attached to his theory that he is blind to all disconfirming evidence. I was the same way for many years when I was a young earth creationists, so I’m obviously not saying he is evil. I actually almost get the impression that he really sees he might be wrong, because of all the disconfirming evidence that has come out recently, but he just can’t bring himself to admit it (again, like I was for the first about 6 months of honestly stufying evolution). He seems like a genuinely nice guy, I would love to have coffee with him and talk about his ideas. I don’t think he is an out and out charlatan who is purposely deceiving, like Jonathan Wells does.
You should read the trial transcripts and Behe’s book and come to your own conclusion. If you do read Behe’s books you also ought to read Ken Miller’s books “Saving Darwin’s God” and “Only a Theory” which nicely demolishes Behe’s arguments (Miller is a Christian, by the way). Hope this post clears things up a bit. Have a good day.

Dan,
Your comment is an impressive exercise in twisting words uncharitably. I am familiar with his books and his testimony. I see no contradictions. You need to give some direct quotes, not just some summaries in your own words. Even your summaries don’t support your position.
Behe said that not one paper had been published to explain how the immune system evolved. In the trial he was shown dozens of papers, several books, and chapters from college textbooks on the evolution of the immune system. He admitted that he had read some of them, but then said they weren’t good enough. But originally he had said that they didn’t exist, not that they weren’t good enough.
Why don’t you point me to one of those papers. The lawyer said they showed how the immune system evolved, and Behe has consistently said they do not. Just show me one of them that gives a step by step description of the evolution of the immune system. You claim that the ACLU lawyer was telling the truth, right? It should be easy for you.

Darrel Falk,
Do you approve of all these personal attacks on Michael Behe by Karl Giberson, Gordon Glover and Dan (without factual support)?

“He seems like a genuinely nice guy, I would love to have coffee with him and talk about his ideas. I don’t think he is an out and out charlatan who is purposely deceiving…”
I second this. Behe and I have exchanged e-mails and I have found him to be the most polite, gracious and curteous of all ID’ist I’ve communicated with. I’d like to think he is just so invested in his position that he can’t step back and see things objectively, but the fact that he is much more careful with his words when under oath leads me to suspect that he knows his position is weak. But hey, he’s got a good thing going. Like Dembski said, why publish peer-reviewed articles when you can make so much money selling books?

Peeling Dragon Skin
Gordon,
Karl Giberson said:
But this is completely false, and these confident spokesmen know it. Here is how they know it.
You defended Giberson saying:
Well, Behe does sing a different song when under oath — as you can see by reading his testimony in Dover. Funny how the threat of purgery (sic) does that. So I’d say Karl is merely stating the obvious: that these people are misleading and they should (and do when under oath) know better.
You haven’t given any specific examples of contradictory statements on and off the witness stand.
Why do theistic evolutionists invest so much in ad hominem attacks on ID proponents and misrepresenting them? It is not convincing and is not charitable.

Gordon J. Glover; BeagleLady, et. al.
You argue that the scientific community is thoroughly objective:
“the scientific community has a built-in system of checks and balances called “peer review”. Scientists mercilessly scrutinize eachother’s work for just this sort of bias. If there is even a hint of wishful thinking, the offending party is confronted and asked to employ more rigorous controls. Not only are the results made public, but the assumptions and controls as well. This allows other teams of scientists who might we working along similar lines to replicate the experiements and cross check the data.”
In theory, this sounds wonderful, but practice is an entirely different matter. You should read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Nature of Scientific Revolutions,” in which he details the birth and death of theories. Theories are not so much fact-driven as consensus-driven. As such, they respond more to social factors than they do to evidence.
Despite the “controls” in which you’ve placed your faith, the evol.-establishment seems to behave like drug companies. When their findings violate their product, they merely seek other “findings” (from which they have many to choose), placing the offending findings into a locked safe. Scientist Bruce Malone claimed that when the fossils are not found in the right strata, the evol.-establishment merely claims that the levels had been inverted! Head I win; tails I win!
When you have an unlimited number of dots (“findings”), it’s always possible to arrange those selected dots into whatever portrait you wish to draw. There are potentially millions of methods of dating. All object change or disintegrate in formulaic and predictable ways. Therefore, each one can serve as a geological clock. Among the many, there is the rate of soil creation, sallination of bodies of water, silt deposits, loss of helium from rocks, the movement of the moon towards the earth, the earth’s magnetic field deterioration….
If this is the case, then it becomes easy to cherry-pick those dots that seem to fit into our theories. However, you’ve failed to explain how peer-reviewed journals, etc. can control for these factors. Instead, there are weighty reasons to remain quite skeptical about these “controls.”
Non-IDer David Berlinski recently disclosed that these journals have closed their doors to papers and research that fail to mimic the party line – pro-evolution stance. One editor of a peer-reviewed journal had apologized that he wasn’t allowed to publish an ID paper.
It is beyond dispute that the evol.-establishment is highly repressive and punitive to anyone who steps out of line. Just take a look at Ben Steins “Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed,” which documents how professors have been harassed and have even lost their jobs for criticizing evolution.
Expecting the evol.-establishment to safe-guard science is like expecting the California Parole Authority to safeguard children against pedophiles under their supervision. Just ask John Garrido! It’s like expecting our economic regulatory agencies to safeguard us against another economic meltdown! But I think that these analogies fall short of illuminating the nature of the evol.-establishment. Instead, trusting this establishment to safeguard science is more like expecting the Nazis to protect their Jews.

“You should read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Nature of Scientific Revolutions,” in which he details the birth and death of theories. Theories are not so much fact-driven as consensus-driven.” — I have. And it’s a great book.
“Scientist Bruce Malone claimed that when the fossils are not found in the right strata, the evol.-establishment merely claims that the levels had been inverted!” — Bruce Malone is a chemical engineer who has sworn an oath against evolution. I’d say he’s not the best source of objective information. Why not try a few palaeontologists?
“There are potentially millions of methods of dating. All object change or disintegrate in formulaic and predictable ways. Therefore, each one can serve as a geological clock. Among the many, there is the rate of soil creation, sallination of bodies of water, silt deposits, loss of helium from rocks, the movement of the moon towards the earth, the earth’s magnetic field deterioration….” — FALSE! None of these are reliable for giving absolute ages. There are too many environmental factors that effet these “rates” and too many assumptions about how they might change over time. Radiometric decay is the only “clock-like” natural process that is uneffected by outside influence. Only relativistic effects can alter the rate of decay.
“Non-IDer David Berlinski recently disclosed that these journals have closed their doors to papers and research that fail to mimic the party line – pro-evolution stance.” — perhaps you didn’t see the recent cover of NEW SCIENTIST magazine that said, “Darwin was wrong?”
“It is beyond dispute that the evol.-establishment is highly repressive and punitive to anyone who steps out of line.” — If by, out of line, you mean attempting to replace science with pseudo-science, then I guess you’re right. And I guess the medical community would take the same approach to voo-doo or shamaanism if it tried to weasel its way into the discussion. Ever heard of Ancient Alien Theory? The archaeological “establishment” doesn’t have much patience with that “controversy” either.
“Just take a look at Ben Steins “Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed,” which documents how professors have been harassed and have even lost their jobs for criticizing evolution.” — Don’t believe everything you see in movies. Again, scientists criticize evolution all the time. But you can’t replace something with nothing. If you want to replace model that has pretty good explanitory power, you need to propose a model with BETTER explanitory power. For instance the article in New Scientists criticized the traditional understanding of Darwins “tree of life” by offering a differet model for how some bacteria exchange genetic information. If you want to criticize Darwin on scientific grounds, that’s how you do it. But ID doesn’t offer anything except vague notions of “design” — however that works. ID doesn’t even say who the designer is or how he/she/it manipulates genetic information. So they’ve got nothing. If they actually proposed a mechanism by which an intelligent designer can do what they claim, then people would listen. But since ID’ists claim that the actions of the Designer are not detectable, there is not much more they can do except whine about not being taken seriously.

Gordon,
Can you really write this with a straight face?:

the scientific community has a built-in system of checks and balances called “peer review”. Scientists mercilessly scrutinize eachother’s work for just this sort of bias. If there is even a hint of wishful thinking, the offending party is confronted and asked to employ more rigorous controls. Not only are the results made public, but the assumptions and controls as well. This allows other teams of scientists who might we working along similar lines to replicate the experiements and cross check the data.

Most people know that that is not how “science” really works. Do you also think that there are no politics in academia? Richard Lewontin is a little more realistic:

The standard form of a scientific paper begins with a theoretical question, which is then followed by the description of an experimental technique designed to gather observations pertinent to the question. Only then are the observations themselves described. Finally there is a discussion section in which a great deal of energy is often expended rationalizing the failure of the observations to accord entirely with a theory we really like, and in which proposals are made for other experiments that might give more satisfactory results. Sagan’s suggestion that only demonologists engage in “special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble,” is certainly not one that accords with my reading of the scientific literature. . . .
As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Wilson’s Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia. Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution. . . . Even The Demon-Haunted World itself sometimes takes suspect claims as true when they serve a rhetorical purpose as, for example, statistics on child abuse, or a story about the evolution of a child’s fear of the dark.

PDS,
Thanks for the Lewontin quote!

Daniel,
The whole review is worth reading:
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

Why don’t you point me to one of those papers. The lawyer said they showed how the immune system evolved, and Behe has consistently said they do not.

Hope you don’t mind my stepping in here. Behe said he didn’t read all of the articles and books he was shown, so how could he claim to know what they did or did not show?
Here’s part of the transcript from the trial

pds, Richard Lewontin is a scientist, so he has invalidated himself, correct? Or is he the only good one who can be believed, and all the others are bad? Actually, I doubt we can learn much about how science works by reading his old book review.

Beaglelady,
Behe said he didn’t read all of the articles and books he was shown, so how could he claim to know what they did or did not show?
I think Behe was generally familiar with the state of the scientific knowledge and literature in that area. I think he would have known if someone had come up with a step by step description of the evolution of the immune system. He does not have to read every article word for word to know that.
Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along.
Why don’t you point me to one of those papers? The lawyer said they showed how the immune system evolved, and Behe has consistently said they do not. Just show me one of them that gives a step by step description of the evolution of the immune system. If the ACLU lawyer was telling the truth, it should be easy for you.
My understanding is that what the attorney did was a cheap stunt. Do you approve?
See footnote 174 here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1372

I think Behe was generally familiar with the state of the scientific knowledge and literature in that area. I think he would have known if someone had come up with a step by step description of the evolution of the immune system. He does not have to read every article word for word to know that.

Does he have someone else reading the literature for him?

Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along.

Please explain what you mean by this.
As for papers on the evolution of the immune system, Ken Miller in his testimony at the same trial mentions several
here.
(I know, I know, not good enough, right?)

BeagleLady,
To falsify ID, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage. Did he do that? Please show me where.
The way he misrepresents Behe and ID, it seems that Miller does not really get ID.

pds,
Again, please tell me what you meant by your last sentence here:

“I think Behe was generally familiar with the state of the scientific knowledge and literature in that area. I think he would have known if someone had come up with a step by step description of the evolution of the immune system. He does not have to read every article word for word to know that.
Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along.Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along.”

To falsify ID, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage.

Do you actually thing Miller is trying to falsify ID here? Did you read any of the papers mentioned?
And if Miller doesn’t get ID, perhaps you could explain it to me.
btw, Nova did a 2-hour show about the trial in Dover and it may be viewed online here

pds,
I was not clear in my last post. The sentence I want you to explain is the following:
“Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along.Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along”

“To falsify ID, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms…”
“To falsify ID…” I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that. How can you falsify God speaking things into existence ex nihilo? No matter how things actually look, you can always say, “yea, but God made it that way.” Too much.
That’s like me saying, “If you can’t falsify my theory that the entire universe was created last Tuesday with the appearence of age and all of our memories were implanted when we woke up that morning, then I must be right.”

Gordon J. Glover (pds and BeagleLady),
Don’t laugh so hard! You have mis-applied the criterion of “falsifiability” – something that can’t be applied to questions of existence. This is because science can’t deal with questions of non-existence. It is unable to disprove the existence of the sun, moon, the Lock Ness Monster, and even GJG. However, this doesn’t mean that science has nothing positive to say about these entities. In fact, science has a lot to say about the sun and the moon – and potentially, even God.
Ironically, while science can’t disprove naturalism, it has NOTHING to say about it either. There are no positive evidences for it, unlike the case of the sun and God. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence for naturalism. Although we all agree that phenomena act according to laws and formulas in predictable ways, rather than these being the result of natural, unintelligent laws, there is a growing body of evidence that these laws are actually part of the mind of God and derive their continuance through Him.
Nevertheless, “naturalism” has been enthroned as the goddess-gatekeeper over the sciences, preventing access to certain people and ideas.
Here is what is even more astounding – Many who call themselves “Christian” have become the most hostile voices against ID, despite the fact that the essence of ID is Biblical! According to Romans 1, we are without excuse when it comes to the knowledge of God. Why? Because God has made both His existence and character plain to us through the things He created!
It seems to me that TEers loathe themselves and are afflicted with an auto-immune response that deprives them of the very evidential reassurances that they so desperately need in this contentious world. Not only that, but those confused Christians who come to them for guidance are unknowingly also stripped of those very supports (Romans 1:32).

“Although we all agree that phenomena act according to laws and formulas in predictable ways, rather than these being the result of natural, unintelligent laws, there is a growing body of evidence that these laws are actually part of the mind of God and derive their continuance through Him.” — I’m pretty sure BioLogos would not dispute this. This is also my position. It’s ironic, though, how you pick and choose which “growing bodies of evidence” you want to believe, and which you want to dismiss.
“Here is what is even more astounding – Many who call themselves “Christian” have become the most hostile voices against ID, despite the fact that the essence of ID is Biblical!” — I believe in providence also, but I would be equally critical of any well-intentioned Christian who claimed that this doctrine should replace existing scientific models like gravitation. Even though Scripture says that “not even a sparrow FALLS to the ground apart from the Father” we do not attempt to discredit Newtonian physics by replacing it with a theological doctrine, even though we all know gravitation has its shortcomings. That’s what makes I.D. destable to us.
“According to Romans 1, we are without excuse when it comes to the knowledge of God. Why? Because God has made both His existence and character plain to us through the things He created!” — Amen brother! But this doctrine is true regarless of the means by which God realizes His created activity in the fullness of time. Surely you have to recognize this or you are limited to applying Paul’s statement only to that which God does by fiat! But Paul specifically says “all of creation”. So what if God creates livings things via a natural mechanism? That is, in fact, how all people on the earth today were created. Are we not also God’s handiwork?
As one who designs and builds machines for a living, I can tell you first hand that a deisn is useless unless there is a means by which to manufacture it. Even Ancient Alien Theory fill in it’s gaps with a far fetched hypothesis (visiting aliens). If ID even remotely resembled scinece, it would propose a mechanism by which the creator could manipulate our genetic code and then test it in the laboratry. If it’s not testable or falsifiable, then it’s not science. That doesn’t mean its categorically false — but it does mean it’s not science. Heck, the doctrine of God’s providence is neither testable nor falsifiable, but no Chrisisn would deny it.

Many who call themselves “Christian” have become the most hostile voices against ID, despite the fact that the essence of ID is Biblical!

Daniel, shhh! Don’t give ID away. You aren’t supposed to admit that it’s about religion. Otherwise, you’ll never be able to sneak it into the science classroom!
One reason many Christians are against ID is because it’s “God of the gaps” theology, plain and simple. It’s a line of reasoning that says, “if there’s something we don’t understand about the natural world, that must be where God is.” That turns God into a placeholder for scientific ignorance. Trouble is, historically the gaps have narrowed, making God into a pathetic figure who needs to scurry to find more ignorance to hide in. Additionally, many are against ID because it’s scientifically vacuous, telling us nothing of scientific value.
As Rothschild remarked in his closing argument in the Dover case (pertaining to the evolution of the immune system):

Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. It’s the immune system. It’s our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don’t bother.

And finally, if you think ID doesn’t get the attention it deserves, most ID theorists chose NOT to participate in the Dover trial and even declined NOVA’s request for interviews.

Gordon,
You said,
“To falsify ID…” I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that. How can you falsify God speaking things into existence ex nihilo? No matter how things actually look, you can always say, “yea, but God made it that way.” Too much.
Ken Miller claimed he did falsify ID:
The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the “irreducibly complex” flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
So which is it?
I already told you how to falsify ID:
To falsify ID, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system [or flagellum] could have been accomplished (plausibly) by Darwinian mechanisms: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage.
Miller agrees with me, and claims he did it. But it is clear that he did not. He only showed how one small part could originate. He said nothing of the assembly of the entire system.

Beaglelady,
“Hardly anyone was even asking these kinds of questions until Behe came along.”
My understanding is that, until Behe wrote Darwin’s Black Box, not much effort was spent trying to figure out the origin of the flagellum. After that, lots of effort has been put into that. And science has benefited from it.
Rothschild said,
By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don’t bother.
That is false. Behe has never said “don’t bother.” Show me where he has said that. Why oh why are theistic evolutionists so intent on misrepresenting ID proponents? Can’t you win through honesty?

Beaglelady (and Gordon),
Although you haven’t argued against my contention that the evidence favors ID (supernaturalism) over naturalism (which is utterly unsupportable and yet reigns supreme in the science classroom), you make this vacuous charge of the “God of the gaps” against ID: “One reason many Christians are against ID is because it’s “God of the gaps” theology, plain and simple. It’s a line of reasoning that says, “if there’s something we don’t understand about the natural world, that must be where God is.” That turns God into a placeholder for scientific ignorance. Trouble is, historically the gaps have narrowed, making God into a pathetic figure who needs to scurry to find more ignorance to hide in.”
Until you demonstrate the plausibility of naturalism over ID, you cannot reasonably make such a charge. Instead, there is far more support for the charge of “Naturalism of the gaps!” Besides, it seems that the more we learn, the more the gaps seem to be growing rather than closing.
Again, you charge, “Additionally, many are against ID because it’s scientifically vacuous, telling us nothing of scientific value.”
Once again, I must take you by the hand (along with your beagle) to lead you back to the question, “which is more scientifically vacuous, ID or naturalism?”

pds,
I did not put quotation marks around DON’T BOTHER, and neither did anyone else. It is not a direct quote. What Behe said was that studying how the immune system evolved would not be “fruitful.” In essence, this means It won’t lead anywhere, so why bother?
I have already asked you to explain the theory of ID, so why don’t you do it, if you think I am misrepresenting ID.

Once again, I must take you by the hand (along with your beagle) to lead you back to the question, “which is more scientifically vacuous, ID or naturalism?”

Define naturalism.

Ken Miller claimed he did falsify ID

No he did not. ID can not be falsified. Can the intelligent designer be sealed out of an experiment? Asking questions about the designer is not even allowed.
Miller showed that the bacterial flagellum was not intelligently designed (meaning in this case not irreducibly complex).

BL,
Naturalism is a philosophical belief that everything results from undesigned and unintelligent causation.

Daniel,
I think you mean philosophical naturalism. Now what is ID?

Daniel Mann,
You wrote, “Although you haven’t argued against my contention that the evidence favors ID (supernaturalism) over naturalism (which is utterly unsupportable and yet reigns supreme in the science classroom)….”
I find your statement very puzzling considering you have admitted repeatedly that it would take several years for you to really study the evidence for evolution, and you already know it is wrong because it doesn’t fit your personal interpretation of scripture. The evidence doesn’t favor intelligent design because intelligent design just says “this is really complicated, so it must be a miracle.” There is no evidence for intelligent design. You have freely admitted (which I applaud you for) that you haven’t read much on intelligent design, don’t have a science background, and don’t really understand evolution (or the philosophy of science), but only reject evolution based on your personal interpretation of scripture, devoid of considering the scientific evidence. That is hardly “evidence” for intelligent design.
I think you really don’t understand what naturalism is. Methodological naturalism is an integral part of science. Philosophical naturalism, which you mistakenly think science is, is the idea that there is nothing other than the natural. Scientists who do real science, whether Christian or atheists, base their studies on methodological naturalism, but that does NOT mean they think there is no supernatural, God isn’t providencial, or that the supernatural is behind the natural laws that are discovered. I have read essays by theistic evolutionists that consider themselves strict Calvinists! I hope that shows you that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are two completely different things.

PDS,
You wrote “To falsify ID, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system [or flagellum] could have been accomplished (plausibly) by Darwinian mechanisms: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage.”
That is ridiculous. Behe says that a structure is irreducibly complex if it can’t function without every part, Miller showed that the blood clotting cascaded, the flagellum, and the immune system are not irreducibly complex. There are plausible Darwinian explanations for how these structures could develop. Behe’s assertion that these structures/systems are irreducibly complex was demolished by Miller.
Unfortunately, you insist on an impossible standard of evidence. You insist that Miller explain EVERY step in the evolution of the immune system, by showing that each step conferred a survival advantage. This really just shows you don’t understand how evolution works. For one thing, evolution doesn’t always directly aid survival advantages in every step of a process. Old parts can serve new functions, Gould’s idea about spandrels and exaptations is important here, most mutations are selectively neutral, and genetic drift is a pronounced part of evolution. So you saying that each step must confer a survival advantage shows that you are naïve about many of the basic evolutionary mechanisms.
To show you how ridiculous your “prove every detail of every step of the process” statement is consider this example. Last year a couple people insisted that they found Bigfoot. Testing showed that the fur was synthetic and was part of a costume. According to PDS’s “logic” that would not be enough to falsify that the body was really Bigfoot. The researchers would have to prove how the body got there, exactly who found it, the exact time and date and location it was purchased, what company made it, what chemistry was involved in the manufacture of the costume, what shipping route the costume took, how much it cost, prove the body had not been switched, and prove how many people had known about the hoax before people with PDS-like logic would believe the body was not really Bigfoot.
PDS, you need to understand that just because every step in a scientific process is not completely explained it doesn’t mean that any old wild guess is on equal footing with demonstrated research. True we don’t understand every step of the evolution of the immune system, but Miller has shown conclusively that Behe saying that it is irreducibly completely is false.

Dan,
I would prefer that you deal with my ideas rather than my credentials – whether or not I belong to the good-ole-boys-club. In this, you are being needlessly dismissive and are obscuring the real issues. I don’t think that I require a PHD in biology in order to cry out, “The king has no clothing on!” Perhaps the PHD might even serve to blind and indoctrinate?
METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM VS. THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATURALISM: I agree that there is a difference between the two and agree that research is restricted to “natural” manipulations. After all, we can’t place God in a test tube. However, the philosophy has also been secretly imported along with it.
It hasn’t been methods that have prohibited the discussion of ID. It’s not methods that have people fired from their positions. It’s not methods that have enshrined evolution and the evol-establishment as the uncontested sovereigns. Nor has it been methods that have determined that only natural causation can be considered. All of these phenomena disclose the reign and domination of philosophical naturalism.

I don’t think that I require a PHD in biology in order to cry out, “The king has no clothing on!”
– No you don’t need a PhD in biology. Heck, my last biology course was in 9th grade and my mom told me not to believe any of it anyway. So I literaly started from scratch about 3 years ago. But if you want to argue intelligently for or against the organizing principle of the biological science, and the unifying princple of all the life sciences, then you should at least make some semblance of an effort to understand how science in general works, and in particular how biology and geology work.
You, on the other hand, seem to flaunt your ignorance of all things scientific. Yet you are more than happy to assert that “the King has no clothes on” simply on the basis of you not being able to reconcile his wardrobe with your preconceived notions of biblical authority. Don’t you see the problem with this?
My credentials are no better than yours. The difference is that after years of slaming evolution as stupid, baseless, and anti-Christian, I actually decided to learn something about it. And having done that, I can confidently say that Creationism is the naked king.
“However, the philosophy has also been secretly imported along with it.” — Then why aren’t you more supportive of BioLogos when they seek to drive the materialist philosophy out of the natural sciences?

Peeling Dragon Skin
Gordon, Beaglelady and Dan,
You are taking my quote out of context:
To falsify ID, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage.
This was in the context of my discussion of Behe’s testimony in connection with the document dump stunt of the ACLU lawyer, in response to this statement:
Behe said that not one paper had been published to explain how the immune system evolved. In the trial he was shown dozens of papers, several books, and chapters from college textbooks on the evolution of the immune system. He admitted that he had read some of them, but then said they weren’t good enough. But originally he had said that they didn’t exist, not that they weren’t good enough.
I think my statement was clear, but since it has been distorted, let me rephrase:
To falsify ID in the context of the immune system by showing that the immune system is not irreducibly complex, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms plausibly: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage.

Dan,
You have distorted my position. I never said Miller or anyone had to “prove every detail of every step of the process.”
Your Bigfoot analogy is misguided. Evolution is not Bigfoot. ID is not Bigfoot. Darwin’s theory claims species came from a PROCESS or MECHANISM of random mutation + natural selection. If you can’t show the PROCESS or MECHANISM is plausible, I understand.
I wish I had time to elaborate, but I don’t.

peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com
Beaglelady,
You said,
I have already asked you to explain the theory of ID, so why don’t you do it, if you think I am misrepresenting ID.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
More here:
Intelligent Design

Still no one has really answered this question, which I asked above, which is directly on the topic of this post (We are one body and we must nurture and care for each other, all the more so when we think differently on some points.):
Darrell Falk,
Was Karl Giberson doing what you call for in this piece, which was full of personal attacks?
http://scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot.com/2009/06/rhetoric-vs-science.html
Here is John West’s reply:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/wheres_the_dialogue_alas_colle.html

To falsify ID in the context of the immune system by showing that the immune system is not irreducibly complex, Miller has to show that the assembly of the immune system could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms plausibly: step by step assembly of the entire system with each step providing a survival advantage.

Actually showing how ANY step might have evolved will falsify the irreducible complexity argument of the immune system. Of course, no explanation will be good enough for you, and I am simply wasting bandwidth here. Even if we could explain every last damned mutation it wouldn’t be good enough, because you could say that the designer has been pushing genes around for ages. Or perhaps he waited for parts of it to evolve and then gave it a little goose from time to time. Or he is trying to fool us into thinking it evolved.
But whatever…
You can find a good annotated bibliography on the evolution of the immune system here.
And you can find a good summary here
Now exactly what is the ID explanation of the origin of the immune system?

“Your Bigfoot analogy is misguided. Evolution is not Bigfoot. ID is not Bigfoot.”
How about this one then: The pseudoscience of Paleo-contact captializes on the obvious problems facing mainstream archaeology and anthropology. Specifically, that there is little if any evidence that the ancients had the technology required to put together megalithic strucgures like Stonehenge, Baalbeck, the pyramids of Giza, Teotehuacan, etc… In short, nobody can demonstrate, in a step-wise fashion, the means ancient man could have used to quarry stones weighing upwards of 2 million pounds, transport them hundreds of miles over rough terrain, and lift them and place them into precise locations. In same cases, these stones have features “machined” into them that are so precise, they can hardly be replicated with modern equipment. You want to talk about missing links? Nowhere in the archaeological record are any tool capable of performing these great feats! Yet these structures are here for everyone to see.
Nobody disputes that these structures are the result of an intelligent process. But since mainstream archaeology can’t provide a step-wise explanation for them, it prompts alien entheusiasts to push theories of paleo-contact. I think you would agree that no matter how entertaining such a hypothesis might be, there is no legitamate “controversy” when it comes to alien intervention (sorry Stargate fans).
Now look at the micromachinery of a cell. Does it show evidence of intelligence? You bet! As a theist, I see God’s handiwork all over these complex structures. But design is a trivial explanation. Of course nature reflects God’s design (speaking as a theist). But scientifically speaking, design is a non-explanation. To qualify as science, ID needs to demonstrate a mechanism by which an intellgent agent can manifest designs at the biochemical level. It’s not sufficient just to say “it’s designed” and walk away. And it’s not sufficient to do, as the pseudo-archaeologists do, and use the shortcomings of ordinary cause-and-effect-based science to prop up a non-scientific position that assumes only supernatural cuases (alien intervention notwithstanding).
To say that no step-wise explanation is possible is to say that the designer left himself no other option but to directly manipulate things at the biochemical level. Fine. So how does he do this? Is such a hypothesis testable? Falisiable? However, if the designer gifted his creation with the ability to self-organize thereby acheiving his creative will via a step-wise process, then we’re right back to studying evolution (or something like it).

“Your Bigfoot analogy is misguided. Evolution is not Bigfoot. ID is not Bigfoot.”
How about this one then: The pseudoscience of Paleo-contact captializes on the obvious problems facing mainstream archaeology and anthropology. Specifically, that there is little if any evidence that the ancients had the technology required to put together megalithic strucgures like Stonehenge, Baalbeck, the pyramids of Giza, Teotehuacan, etc… In short, nobody can demonstrate, in a step-wise fashion, the means ancient man could have used to quarry stones weighing upwards of 2 million pounds, transport them hundreds of miles over rough terrain, and lift them and place them into precise locations. In same cases, these stones have features “machined” into them that are so precise, they can hardly be replicated with modern equipment. You want to talk about missing links? Nowhere in the archaeological record are any tool capable of performing these great feats! Yet these structures are here for everyone to see.
Nobody disputes that these structures are the result of an intelligent process. But since mainstream archaeology can’t provide a step-wise explanation for them, it prompts alien entheusiasts to push theories of paleo-contact. I think you would agree that no matter how entertaining such a hypothesis might be, there is no legitamate “controversy” when it comes to alien intervention (sorry Stargate fans).
Now look at the micromachinery of a cell. Does it show evidence of intelligence? You bet! As a theist, I see God’s handiwork all over these complex structures. But design is a trivial explanation. Of course nature reflects God’s design (speaking as a theist). But scientifically speaking, design is a non-explanation. To qualify as science, ID needs to demonstrate a mechanism by which an intellgent agent can manifest designs at the biochemical level. It’s not sufficient just to say “it’s designed” and walk away. And it’s not sufficient to do, as the pseudo-archaeologists do, and use the shortcomings of ordinary cause-and-effect-based science to prop up a non-scientific position that assumes only supernatural cuases (alien intervention notwithstanding).
To say that no step-wise explanation is possible is to say that the designer left himself no other option but to directly manipulate things at the biochemical level. Fine. So how does he do this? Is such a hypothesis testable? Falisiable? However, if the designer gifted his creation with the ability to self-organize thereby acheiving his creative will via a step-wise process, then we’re right back to studying evolution (or something like it).

Gordon, et.al,
Responding to my assault against naturalism, he wrote “Then why aren’t you more supportive of BioLogos when they seek to drive the materialist philosophy out of the natural sciences?”
I hadn’t noticed! Instead, I’ve watched as BioLogos has followed in lock-step with naturalism:
1. Biologos and TE have stripped the faith of its physical-historical teachings in order to accommodate to Darwin. They have created two non-overlapping orbs to eliminate any any conflict between the two. Evolution has been ceded everything they’ve wanted – the physical world – while Christianity has been relegated to the world of spirit where it can say little to science or any other discipline. (Even evolutionists mock this artificial arrangement!)
2. By removing the factual supports and theistic proofs for the faith, Christianity has been rendered support-less. How then can you preach the spiritual message to the evolutionists when you’ve already confessed that they can’t believe any of the Bible’s physical teachings about the world? Hence, I haven’t seen where Biologos has any viable message for the skeptics.
3. The marriage you’ve transacted between Darwin and Jesus is temporary. Darwin and naturalism seek to entirely remove Jesus from the marriage bed. Naturalism wants to explain EVERYTHING – religion, ethics, psychology…– without recourse to anything spiritual. Its acid will continue to dissolve the Christian faith. Even your artificial wall will not withstand it after the compromises you have made.
4. Biologos and TE have removed theology from its historical bedrock. Doctrine is based upon history as the theology of the Cross is based upon the history of the Cross. When you remove the historical basis, you have removed everything.
5. Biologos and the TEs have denigrated the OT along with the teachings about the physical world, but to achieve this, they must also denigrate the NT writers who uniformly endorsed the historicity of the OT.

Daniel, that was one of the most pathetic and uncharitable rants I’ve heard from you yet. What you are saying is simply false.
“Biologos and TE have stripped the faith of its physical-historical teachings in order to accommodate to Darwin.” — we have repeatedly affirmed the great (physical) miracles of Scripture, and the work of the Holy Spirit.
“Evolution has been ceded everything they’ve wanted – the physical world – while Christianity has been relegated to the world of spirit where it can say little to science or any other discipline.” — You are either extreemly dishonest, or a simpleton. BioLogos affirms the Christian faith as stated in the Apostles and Nicene creeds. It affirms that Scripture is inspired and that God raised Jesus from the dead. This in no way wins us any points with our atheist friends. You can see that just from reading the comments here. It’s very sad that you would resort to this level of misrepresentation.
“By removing the factual supports and theistic proofs for the faith, Christianity has been rendered support-less.” — If we believe by faith, why the need for factual supports and theistic proofs? Are you that weak and spiritually immature that you need science to help reaffirm your faith? Very sad. You accuse us of worshipping science, yet it seems as though your faith depends on it!
“How then can you preach the spiritual message to the evolutionists when you’ve already confessed that they can’t believe any of the Bible’s physical teachings about the world?” — Once again, you are either intentionally misrepresenting BL, or you are a simpleton. We preach that Christ was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. This is the Gospel. If you have made something else the Gosepl (like a certain method of creation), then you need to repent of making false idols.
“Hence, I haven’t seen where Biologos has any viable message for the skeptics.” — How about this message: being a Chrisian doesn’t mean turning off the brain God gave you. You would have people believe in a God who apparently says one thing, but does another (while commanding his servants to believe that which he erased all evidence of and to deny that which he planted copious amounts of evidence of).
“Naturalism wants to explain EVERYTHING – religion, ethics, psychology…– without recourse to anything spiritual. — Now I think you must be a simpleton. Can you not even grasp the difference between methodological naturalism and materialism? I’m starting to think you’re not playing with a full deck. How many times have we explained this to you?
“No Doctrine is based upon history as the theology of the Cross is based upon the history of the Cross. When you remove the historical basis, you have removed everything.” — Where has anyone from BioLogos denied the historicity of the Cross?
Daniel, you are obviously getting flustered and it’s affecting your sense of Christian charity. If you need to take a break and cool off, feel free. You know where to find us when you’re ready for constructive dialogue.

Gordon,
Stonehenge is a bit better analogy, but it fails too. I can easily imagine a plausible pathway for its construction. So can this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0
Second, Stonehenge was designed, and is a good example of how we detect design, even if we do not know the details of the designer or the mechanism. On the “logic” of one of your last posts on Stonehenge, you may want to respond to this post:
http://telicthoughts.com/id-vs-alien-intervention/
You said, “But design is a trivial explanation.”
I strongly disagree, as do many others. You seem to have a very narrow view of science.

pds, thanks for the invite. I did, however, comment on your post a while back.
The plausible pathways for the construction of Stonehenge or Giza or Baalbeck proves my point. Even though we might not ever know for sure how things happen, given that they clearly exist it doesn’t take much imagination to propose plausible solutions without resorting to aliens or deities. At Dover, Behe referred to papers that offered plausible pathways for a step-wise solution to the immune system. IDists reject this because he can’t show exactly how each step worked. This is no different than the tactics of the pseudoarchaeologists.
I’m certainly fine if God wants to reach down and manipulate our DNA or build biochemical machinery from scratch, but as long as a plausible material pathway exists for these structures, there is no reason to invoke deities or aliens.
Design is trivial whether you understand this or not. Trivial means it is not necessarily true or false. Even if it is true, it adds no new information that wasn’t already known or assumed beforehand. When doing science, the design inference has no bearing on any question of the operation, material origin or formation history of a complex structure. All it says is that the structure is the result of a plan. For Christians, what isn’t the result of a plan?
Trivial.

Daniel,
I didn’t say you have to have a PhD in Biology to comment on evolution. I don’t have a PhD, if fact I’m just a senior undergrad biology major. I just meant that you have repeatedly said that you don’t understand evolution, don’t have a science background, and haven’t even read much on intelligent design. I don’t have a PhD, but I have read alot of arguements from both sides. You saying you offered evidences for intelligent design was what I was disagreeing with. You have admitted several times that you don’t understand intelligent design and don’t care to learn about what the evidence says, because your personal interptition of the Bible is right, no matter what the contrary evidence says. That isn’t evidence, thats an arguement from willful ignorance.
Again, I don’t think anyone has to have a PhD to talk intelligently on a subject, but I do think at least basic research should be undertaken before you try to overturn the foundations of modern taxonomy, biogeography, genetics, ecology, and population genetics.

PDS,
I didn’t say ID was exactly like the Bigfoot case. I was pointing out how illogical your statement was that to disprove something you have to explain every single step in exact detail without any speculation. That is what you said about how Miller would have to explain the immune system and disprove Behe. Maybe that’s not what you meant to say, but that IS what you said.
My point was that Behe said that every part of a system had to be in place for it to work, that made it irreducibly complex and unexplainably by evolution. Behe said that if a part is missing than the whole machine falls apart. Miller showed that some of the steps could have come about by natural selection, which disproved Behe’s idea that the immune system (and the flagellum and blood clotting factors) is irreducibly complex. Obviously it didn’t disprove ID, because ID is so nebulous that it can never be disproven. Any evolutionary explanation can be explained away with “well, the designer just made it look like it evolved.” That’s why ID is not science.
Also, I found it funny that you ignored the part of my reply where I showed that you didn’t understand basic evolutionary concepts like neutral mutation, spandrels, exaptations, and genetic drift if you think that evolution has to give a survival advantage in every step in a process. You might want to read up on the basics of evolution before you try to argue about it. Just a suggestion.

Dan,
You said
Also, I found it funny that you ignored the part of my reply where I showed that you didn’t understand basic evolutionary concepts like neutral mutation, spandrels, exaptations, and genetic drift if you think that evolution has to give a survival advantage in every step in a process.
I am quite familiar with these concepts. Unless there is a survival advantage, you are left with random mutation + luck. I do not find it plausible that that will produce a rotary propulsion machine like the flagellum. If you want to believe it can, go ahead.
It is all about plausibility, and making tentative inferences based on plausibility.

Gordon
Design is trivial whether you understand this or not. Trivial means it is not necessarily true or false. Even if it is true, it adds no new information that wasn’t already known or assumed beforehand. When doing science, the design inference has no bearing on any question of the operation, material origin or formation history of a complex structure. All it says is that the structure is the result of a plan. For Christians, what isn’t the result of a plan?
If a scientific theory helps to move us away from a false understanding of origins, then it is very valuable indeed. I would prefer the truth over a false theory with lots of detail as to mechanisms.

If a scientific theory helps to move us away from a false understanding of origins, then it is very valuable indeed. -pds
Indeed. But this has nothing whatever to do with ID, which is not a scientific theory, engenders no useful research, and is maintained for purely religious reasons, although its proponents are mostly too dishonest to admit this.
I’d disagree with the claim (from Gordon J. Glover I think) that methodological naturalism is fundamental to science. Rather, it is the outcome of experience: non-naturalistic hypotheses, such as ID, have never led anywhere scientifically useful (they are still sometimes investigated, e.g. the power of prayer, homeopathy, precognition, so far without any good evidence for any of them). This could change tomorrow, and if it did, methodological naturalism, in so far as it is followed, should be dropped. Philosophical naturalism cannot be proved, but is the default option; as William of Ockham said: “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity”.

“If a scientific theory helps to move us away from a false understanding of origins, then it is very valuable indeed.”
That’s it? In addition to producing no tangible benefits, ID hasn’t even come close to shaking the foundations of the biological and geological sciences. Moreover, there is so much data from so many scientific disciplines that only makes sense if evolution is true, the perplexing structures by themselves can’t shake the foundations of biology. The sucess of evolution to date gives scientists the confidence that the present problems are best understood in light of existing paradigms.
For instance, when the orbit of Uranus was found not to obey Newton’s laws, scientists didn’t toss out gravitation and replace it with some “intelligent orbit” theory. The overwhelming sucess of gravitation gave them confidence to work within the existing paradigm. By sticking to their guns, the prediction was made that if Newton’s theory of gravitation holds true, then there must a planet of X mass orbiting at X location affecting the orbit of Uranus. And when the astronomers turned their telescopes towards the heavens and looked in the predicted location, they found Neptune.
Likewise, the overwhelming sucess of modern biology in making testable predictions gives scientist the confidence to apply the theory to challenging areas. Many of our fossil intermediates, including the artilodactyl-to-cetacean and fish-to-tetrapod transitions were found based on predictions made using these paradigms.
When humans were found to have a mutated copy of the GULO gene, one of 3 genes required to synthesize vitamin c, it was predicted that our genome should also contain the other two — and there they were. It doesn’t make any sense to include broken genes for a feature that is not needed, but who are we to qeustion the designer, right? How can you possibly falsify this trivial nonesense?
Evolution also predicts that our closest living relatives should have all three genes for vit-c synthesis as well, even though they can’t snythesize vitamin c either. With evolution, other primates MUST have the genes. With ID — well, it’s all up the creator, right? They don’t need to be there, but if the designer wants to include them, who are we to argue? Trivial.
Evolution also predicts that since all primates inherited these genes from a common ancestor, the mutation that disabled the GULO gene should be common in every primate species. With ID — it could be anything really. There is no necessary prediction becuase God personally manipulates DNA apart from any descernable patterns. Why then, do all primates have the same point mutation in the same location on the same disabled gene? ID = trivial.
With evolution, a phylogeny constructed from the accumulation of mutations in the GULO gene should match the phylogeny constructed from morphological and palaeontological evidence. Apart from evolution, the odds of phylogenetic convergence for the 15 primate families are 2E+14. So why then did God “design” our GULO pseudogenes to match the exact pattern predicted by evolution?
Again, design fails.

Gordon,
I wish I had time to counter with a laundry list of failed predictions, but you can find all those in the relevant literature.
Are you going to the Biologos workshop in NY? Are any ID proponents invited?

I have no doubt that some predictions of evolution do fail initially. But you have to understand this in the context of how science advances. When Gravitation “failed” to predict the orbit of Uranus, Neptune was discovered. When Gravitiation “failed” to predict the orbit of Mercury, it had to be rescued by Relativity. We now understand gravity to be merely a special case of Relativity, and both are ultimatly flawed because of their incongruence with quantum mechanics.
I have no doubt that the same sort of things are going on in the biological sciences. Evolution makes testable predictions. When they turn out to be true, the theory is strengthened. When they fail, as in the case of certain bacterial phylogenies as reported recently in NEW SCIENTIST, it means we don’t fully understand, or haven’t correctly captured how evolution works. Either way, science presses forward.
The problem with ID is that id doesn’t even function on this level. The only prediction it can make is that some questions might prove too difficult to answer. But so what? How does that prove anything except our own finite knowledge? Even when plausible mechanisms are proposed for evolution, these can simply be attributed to design because design is unconstrained. Design can look like evolution if it wants to. Desgin follows no rules. If there are patterns, then it’s becuase of design. If there are no patterns are incongruent patters, then it’s because of design. etc…
I wish I were going to the workshop, but I don’t qualify as being a leading evangelical, a leading Bible scholar, or a leading scientist. I think it will be diverse crowd, but I don’t know who exactly was invited. I look forward to the proceedings!

I heard that a full list of attendees was not being released. Apparently some wish to attend as anonymously as possible. This is just what I heard; you could contact BioLogos to find out for sure.

Here’s a link about the BioLogos Workshop. I hope they put it on YouTube.

Gordon,
I think you should have been invited to the workshop since you are an author and a leading contributor on this blog.