quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

No, I am saying mutations interdependent and independent structures allowing for new capabilities like those found in a bat are in the evolutionary view the product of imaginary mutations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think that the existence of information driven nano-machinery should lead any reasonable person to consider the existence of a designer, barring spectacular evidence to the contrary, yes.

But why ID rather than theistic evolution? After all TE is as much wedded to a designer as ID is.

quote:


ID implies that God either could not or would not arrange matters at the initial creation so that later on He would get the bats, giraffes, flagellum-powered bacteria, information-driven nanomachinery, and other creatures and features He wanted for His inscrutable reasons.

Evolution implies that God, assuming He exists, could and did stack the deck at the beginning to get the results He wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCC

ID implies that God either could not or would not arrange matters at the initial creation so that later on He would get the bats, giraffes, flagellum-powered bacteria, information-driven nanomachinery, and other creatures and features He wanted for His inscrutable reasons.

quote:

Evolution implies that God, assuming He exists, could and did stack the deck at the beginning to get the results He wanted.

quote:

Remind me: why do IDers believe, as many of them seem to, that ID offers stronger support for Christian faith than mainstream evolutionary theory?

quote:

I hadn't heard that before. I'll wait and see what Jhud says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I hadn't heard that before. I'll wait and see what Jhud says.

RCC is wrong; there are IDists who believe just that.

THe primary difference between an IDist and a theistic evolutionist is that an IDist believes there is objective evidence for his beliefs.

quote:

Which beliefs? Your religious beliefs or your scientific beliefs? Any particular beliefs under either head?

As a general statement, I would not agree that this is a difference between ID and TE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which beliefs? Your religious beliefs or your scientific beliefs? Any particular beliefs under either head?

As a general statement, I would not agree that this is a difference between ID and TE.

Scientific. This is certainly a fundamental difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
RCC is wrong; there are IDists who believe just that.

quote:

According to this brand of ID evolution would be capable of producing irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and complex organisms. This is quite a departure from ID orthodoxy.

quote:

How so? TEs certainly claim that there is objective evidence for their scientific conclusions. We think our scientific stance is more than warranted by the evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

How so? TEs certainly claim that there is objective evidence for their scientific conclusions. We think our scientific stance is more than warranted by the evidence.

Actually, they don't. I have never heard a Theistic Evolutionist ever say their was empirical evidence for their position. The second that one would, he would be by definition an IDist and cease being a TEist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Not at all; you just aren't all that familiar with what ID actually says, or you wouldn't make these sort of ignorant proclamations.

quote:

Does ID state that irreducible complexity and complex specified information can evolve?

quote:

You have got to be kidding. Or you do not really mean their scientific position. In terms of the scientific evidence for evolution, TEs point to the same overwhelming mass of empirical evidence that all evolutionary scientists of whatever religious or non-religious stripe do: e.g.

DNA code
Mutations leading to variations in character traits
Natural selection
Speciation
Geographical distribution of species
Fossil distribution of species
Genetic features consistent with common descent
Phylogeny, nested hierarchy

All of this and more is empirical evidence for evolution and is what TEs mean by empirical evidence for their scientific position.

Since most people who accept this evidence for evolution do not support ID, where do you get the idea that by definition, one who does is an IDist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
You do realize (or perhaps you simply don't) that evidence for evolution is not evidence for theistic evolution?

quote:

But this has absolutely nothing to do with them claiming objective scientific for a theistic evolutionary belief, which none of them ever make; and that is what I said.

quote:

You are mistaken. There is no such thing really as "theistic evolution". There is the theory of evolution. And there are theists who accept the validity of the theory of evolution. Hence there are theistic evolutionists. But the evolution they accept does not differ one whit from the evolution found in a biology text. The evidence for evolution is the evidence for "theistic evolution".

quote:

And that is why I asked if you were speaking of scientific or religious beliefs. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, which is the science of TE. Theism is a religious belief, and that is not what you said. You said you were speaking of scientific beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You are mistaken. There is no such thing really as "theistic evolution". There is the theory of evolution. And there are theists who accept the validity of the theory of evolution. Hence there are theistic evolutionists. But the evolution they accept does not differ one whit from the evolution found in a biology text. The evidence for evolution is the evidence for "theistic evolution".

Well, if we accept your new premise that, "There is no such thing really as "theistic evolution"." then it would not follow (as you claimed) that "TEs certainly claim that there is objective evidence for their scientific conclusions."

quote:

It would follow that evolutionists "claim that there is objective evidence for their scientific conclusions" which goes without saying - but whether they are theists or not is irrelevant.

quote:

As I said in the beginning of this whole convoluted mess you created, "The primary difference between an IDist and a theistic evolutionist is that an IDist believes there is objective evidence for his beliefs. "

The theistic evolutionist of course believes there is objective evidence for evolution, but there is none for 'theistic evolution'.

quote:

And so now you agree with me - there is no scientific evidence for the 'theistic' aspect of theistic evolution.

quote:

How so? The scientific conclusions of TEs are the same as the scientific conclusions of everyone who accept the validity of the theory of evolution.

quote:

Exactly. Evolution is evolution and stands on its own merits as science without regard to the religious viewpoint of the person who agrees with it.

quote:

Because "theistic evolution" is simply "evolution" held to be true by a "theist". There is no reason for the objective evidence for "theistic evolution" to be any different from the evidence for "evolution". Scientifically, we are speaking about the same theory and the same evidence. The only difference is in the religious viewpoint of the people involved in the scientific discourse, and that religious difference is not part of the scientific discourse.

quote:

In fact, that is one of the reasons many TEs prefer the term "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolution" or "theistic evolutionist." However "theistic evolutionist" though problematical, is the more familiar tag.

"Theistic evolution" misleadingly implies that evolution can have a theistic or atheistic "aspect". It doesn't. Like all science it is theologically neutral.

The "theistic" in TE does not actually refer to evolution, but to the theist who supports an evolutionary view of biology. So, if you want scientific evidence for the 'theistic' aspect of TE, just look around and observe that many theists support the theory of evolution, including some well-known evolutionary biologists.

Now, I would like to come back to your original statement. You said that "The primary difference between an IDist and a theistic evolutionist is that an IDist believes there is objective evidence for his beliefs. "

So far, we have been discussing the scientific side of beliefs and I have asserted and maintain that in view of the science a TE believes to be true, TEs do believe there is objective evidence for that science.

We do not include theism in the science, so if you want to talk about that, then from my perspective you are no longer talking of science, but of matters of faith.

I suggest that when you say IDists believe there is objective evidence for their beliefs, you are not referring, as you suggested, to the scientific beliefs of ID, but to the religious beliefs of ID.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

How so? The scientific conclusions of TEs are the same as the scientific conclusions of everyone who accept the validity of the theory of evolution.

Which means that while evolutionists might claim evidence for their beliefs, theistic evolutionists have no objective basis for there beliefs.

quote:

Well, I think you are perverting the use of the term for your own purposes. A theistic evolutionist believes that God used evolution as a means to develop life.

quote:

I suggest you don’t really know what you are talking about. An IDist simply contends the activity of an intelligence can be empirically detected – there is nothing ‘religious’ about that idea.

quote:

so in effect, a theistic evolutionist is simply an evolutionist who has tacked on a theistic belief

quote:

That is incorrect. The theory of evolution is not about the means of developing life. What a TE believes about evolution is limited to what the theory of evolution actually claims and that does not include abiogenesis.

quote:

Oh, ID is a bit more specific than that. At least Dembski's filter is. ID refuses to "detect" the activity of intelligence in anything that can be referred to chance or to law. That is a major difference between ID and TE.

quote:

No, one of the basic principles of TE is that you do NOT tack any non-scientific belief--whether theistic, pantheistic, agnostic or atheistic--to any scientific theory. Let science be science and take the philosophy/theology to the appropriate arena for discussion.

Of course, theology needs to respond to science and to be consistent with sound science. At least if you believe in a creator, your theology must be consistent with the most accurate models of reality available.

But that doesn't mean one's theology ought to be tacked onto or derived from the science. In fact, if one believes in a creator, it is important not to attempt to incorporate one's theology into scientific theories. For if scientific theories are sound, if they are accurate models of creation, they need to be the same for believers and unbelievers alike, just as reality itself is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Pay close attention: I didn’t say evolution was about originating life, I said it was about the “a means to develop life.” – and it is certainly about that (if you know what ‘develop’ means that is) now you can address the point again.

quote:

Well, no, it doesn’t ‘refuse’ “to "detect" the activity of intelligence in anything that can be referred to chance or to law.” it simply acknowledges that intelligence cannot be detected in such things. How in the world could a ‘chance’ event be attributed consistently to intelligence? It’s nonsense.

quote:

Actually, I think it belies how easily evolution coincides with metaphysical beliefs – after all, there isn’t to my knowledge a serious contingent of people who refer to themselves as ‘theistic gravitationalists’ or ‘theistic germ theorists’.

quote:

So, are you talking about embryology, biodiversity or something else?

quote:

If chance operates within the realm of divine providence, it is not contradictory to intelligence.

quote:

Exactly the reason many TEs detest the term "theistic evolutionist". There is no more reason to distinguish evolutionists by their religious affiliation than to make the same distinction in regards to those who accept gravity, germ theory, atomic theory or any other field of science.

In fact, there is really no reason to have a term such as "evolutionist". For it is not just that we don't speak of "theistic gravitationalists" We don't speak of "gravitationalists" at all.

Gravity is not a religion. Neither is evolution. People don't "believe" in evolution religiously any more than they "believe" in gravity or germ theory religiously.

So down with misleading labels. There are no evolutionists. There are people who accept that the theory of evolution is good science and there are people--mostly people with only the vaguest understanding of science--who have doubts about it or utterly refuse to consider it.

There are no theistic evolutionists. There are theists who accept that evolution is good science.
There are no atheistic evolutionists. There are atheists who accept that evolution is good science.

There is no theistic (or atheistic) evolution. There is evolution. Full stop.

And above all there is no evolutionism. There is evolution and a theory of evolution and a history of evolution, but there is no religion of evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So, are you talking about embryology, biodiversity or something else?

No, I am talking about the development of life from a simple cell to the forms of life that exist today.

quote:

quote:

If chance operates within the realm of divine providence, it is not contradictory to intelligence.

Perhaps, but that is statement of faith, not verifiable evidence.

quote:


As usual you are railing against the wrong people. Many ‘evolutionists’ describe themselves as such, and TEs do the same. You may consider yourself the exception, but what you are describing isn’t reality.