International Society for Science and Religion: Intelligent Design is neither sound science nor good theology

I think it is worthwhile noting that the ISSR not only states that ID is not science, it is also bad--I would say really bad--theology. Young earth creationism is even worse theology. Why? In each case the theological implications of the proposed positions are that God must conform to or be comprehensible within the limits of human understanding. This is such a profound failure of theological reasoning that back in the middle ages it would have invited charges of heresy. This is why every scientist, believer or not, should carry the passage from Augustine, that comes up on this site from time to time, with them at all times, and quote it liberally at the beginning of every debate with fundamentalists, creationists or ID advocates. And keep in mind, when confronting the Missouri Synod Lutherans, who have recently gone for young earth creationism, that Luther was an Augustinian before he was a reformer, and would certainly have known about and endorsed Augustine's point of view. It was, of course, also a Lutheran pastor who finally persuaded Copernicus to publish his theory of the solar system. An event at least as disruptive as anything Darwin did.

Another win for Stephen Jay Gould's "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" -http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

And I still maintain that by taking God (and Adam and Eve and Noah et al.) out of the Creation myth, the originators of intelligent design creationism technically committed heresy. Bad theology indeed.

And I still maintain that by taking God (and Adam and Eve and Noah et al.) out of the Creation myth, the originators of intelligent design creationism technically committed heresy. Bad theology indeed.

GBH -- excellent point. Another way to put it: To make and test predictions of ID (or other kinds of creationism) by using the methods of science, the experimenter would have to be able to control for God. By no commonly understood definition of "God" would such a plan make logical sense.

"Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions."

That's cool. Nothing wrong with a good "comprehensive account of the gaps" complementary comprehensive account. Cool!

I have been telling this to everyone watching Lee Strobel videos on youtube for years. Now that the ISSR has said it....everyone on the internet will get along and be correct:)finally:)

And aren’t the theologically appropriate punishments for heresy quite severe?

"...and science should not try to elevate itself into a comprehensive worldview.”

It seems to me that it's the creationists who accuse science of being a comprehensive worldview.

Most scientists are perfectly willing to point out the limitations of the scientific method -- for example, its oft-touted inability to prove a negative, such as "God does not exist", or the difficulties of the historical sciences where experimentation is often impossible (we can't, for example, rerun the building of the Grand Canyon at full scale).

Science focuses on learning what we can about the natural world, and generally takes a neutral stance on most issues of morality and ethics.

So why do creos demonize science as a competing worldview? Perhaps it's a useful oversimplification. "Us vs. Them" is a tried-and-true method of uniting the flock.

Donnie B.: So why do creos demonize science as a competing worldview? Perhaps it's a useful oversimplification. "Us vs. Them" is a tried-and-true method of uniting the flock.

Hey ID is dead, even the Duhscovery Instuhtoot knows that. The battleground has moved to the 'Academic and Student Freedom' issue. Any student is free to put any answer down in an exam and must be marked correct. Any instructor is free to teach anything as science. Any employer is free to hire Chinese students who actually understand science and American kids to wipe down the equipment. Any doctor is free to treat all illnesses as possession by demons and prescribe an exorcism. We are all free to despair and emigrate to Sweden.

"Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or 'scientific' creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology.

FL: Hey PvM, do you agree or disagree with this part?

"Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or 'scientific' creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."

FL

Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be "irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Another win for Stephen Jay Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” -http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.…

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat. --Stephen J. Gould

Theologians, if they want to remain honest, should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science's but still deserving of respect. But in that case you have to renounce miracles. --Richard Dawkins

Those evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs have been careful not to look as closely as we have been looking, or else hold a religious view that gives God what we might call a merely ceremonial role to play. --Daniel Dennett

FL: Hey PvM, do you agree or disagree with this part?

"Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or 'scientific' creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."

FL

Of course, a win for NOMA is an automatic loss for Christians….

FL, do you take seriously the blasphemous teachings of Young Earth Creationism, that God made the Earth to LOOK billions of years old when it was really only thousands of years old?

Why would you beleive in a Creator that is a pathological liar and trickster?

FL: Of course, a win for NOMA is an automatic loss for Christians….

FL: Paul Burnett writes,

Another win for Stephen Jay Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” -http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.…

Yes, I noticed that too. "NOMA again" was actually the first thought that came to mind while I was reading this ISSR evangelistic tract. Of course, a win for NOMA is an automatic loss for Christians....

science should not try to elevate itself into a comprehensive worldview.

This is why every scientist, believer or not, should carry the passage from Augustine, that comes up on this site from time to time, with them at all times, and quote it liberally

[Test]

"In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths."

This seems to be a sentence fragment, and I can't find the quoted text at ISSR. Looks like the beginning of an interesting thought.

It was, of course, also a Lutheran pastor who finally persuaded Copernicus to publish his theory of the solar system.

From the ISSR statement:
"Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or "scientific" creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."

I'm sorry, but how much French am I allowed to use here? 100% wrong. Who gets the complaint?

[Trying the last part of the comment.]

Though the printing was payed for by a catholic bishop science patron, it seems a lutheran philosopher was engaged to include an a_n_o_n_y_m_o_u_s foreword stating that the work was just an hypothesis in spite of Copernicus providing a massive amount of confirming data. Now why does that remind me of when other creationists places stickers to that effect in biology textbooks?

But I'm no historian, so what do I know?

FL's purpose in life is to goad aggressive atheists into hate speech so he can point to it and say "See, they're out to get ya, and that's all this evilution is about." Good job making him happy guys. Or am I getting paranoid thinking it could just be a sock puppet scam. Nah, he doesn't have to go through that much effort. You guys are doing his work for him.

Dropping the hate speech and just spending a few civil words countering his hate speech would be so much more effective. Please.

We have here a number of confident assertions about bad theology. But what does this actually mean? What method does one use to determine whether particular theology is good or bad? (At least when one is talking, as here, of theology meaning "study of god(s)" rather than "study of religion".)

I am particularly intrigued by the assertion that it is really bad theology to imply that God is comprehensible within the limits of human understanding. This is a position that Epimenides would have been proud of. Namely that it is a prerequisite of good theology that all theologians are disqualified from discussing the subject. (True, this only applies to human theologians, but as far as I am aware no orang-utans have yet published on the subject.)

The best way to make sure your product meets the needs of your target audience is to expose your designs to the scrutiny of your users. Doing this during every phase of the design process can help reveal which features of your product work well and which need improvement.

When you give people an opportunity to use your product (or a prototype of it) you may uncover usability problems that you did not anticipate during your initial design phase. Finding and eliminating these problems early can save you time and money later on. Clearly identifying the needs of your users helps you create products that deliver effective solutions and are typically easier for them to learn and use. These improvements can translate into competitive advantages, increased sales, and enhanced customer satisfaction.

Now, I'm as far from a Christian theologian as you could imagine, but FL's point seems very relevant. The Christian religion rests entirely on a sequence of miracles - that their demigod was able to walk on water, transmute elements, rise from the dead, be in two places at once, and other things at the very least not explainable by science. In most cases, not even defined clearly enough to permit the construction of any tests. Jesus was magical, period.

Strikes me as a rather, shall we say, thin and unsatisfying religion that must teach that there really wasn't any Jesus as described, that these tales (much like the tales of Aesop) were constructed strictly to convey moral lessons, that there isn't and never has been any intent to pretend these tales have any historical reality, etc. I think I can understand how a Christian might struggle with the notion that his gods are not "real", but rather an anthropomorphized summary of the stochastic view of reality our frame of reference provides.

I suggest that folks like FL aren't content to regard their faith in such abstract terms. He probably needs something more visceral - he wants his gods to be more physical entities, who actually DO things science can detect but not explain (to his satisfaction, anyway). He needs to pray at a personality, not at a general pattern of events onto which he has projected an arbitrary "purpose" which just happens to fit his own psychological needs. If most Christians share his needs, then science per se is a genuine threat.

I read the statement twice, and I fail to see where they give any reason why ID is bad theology. They simply make an unsubstantiated claim. Now, it is indeed bad in the sense that the marquis IDers have practiced, or attempted to practice, evangelism by deception. Such tactics are necessarily bad and are in absolute conflict with Christian theology as well as with civilized behavior and good manners. However "bare bones" ID, the theological/apologetic argument that the study of God's creation cannot be in conflict with the study of his word—lest God is a god of confusion—cannot be bad theology. Both Psalms and Romans in well know passages say, in effect, that studying creation is one way to know god. Furthermore, Christianity is fairly unique among religions, and absolutely unique (as far as I know) to the extent to which it goes, in arguing that the material world is good, not bad. ID, at least in an appropriately pared down definition that acknowledges that it is not science, is not bad theology at all. The idea that the study of creation (science) should strengthen the faith of a believer rather than be neutral or weaken it is quite (Christian) theologically sound.

Whether ID theory is or is not science, at least it doesn't undermine epistemology altogether, as evolutionary theory does...

“The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Charles Darwin, Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin, F., ed., “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” 1898, Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1959, reprint, p.285)

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” (J.B.S. Haldane, “Possible Worlds,” Chatto & Windus: London, 1927, p.209)

“The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increased prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass - a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck.” (Richard Rorty, “Untruth and Consequences,” The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36)

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” (Francis Crick, “The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul,” Scribner’s, 1994, p. 3)

“I am astonished that otherwise intelligent and informed people, including physicians, are reluctant to believe that mind, as part of life, is matter and only matter.” (Arthur Kornberg, “The Two Cultures: Chemistry and Biology,” Biochemistry 26, 1987, pp. 6888-91)

“On Kornberg’s own premises…his astonishment was unjustified. Presumably, one kind of chemical reaction in the brain causes Kornberg to accept materialist reductionism, while another kind of reaction causes those physicians to doubt it.” (Phillip Johnson, “Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education,” Intervarsity Press, 1995, p. 65)

“(If the) mind is a product of the irrational (which materialistic-naturalistic evolution claims it is) then how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? What makes it impossible that it should be true is not so much the lack of evidence for this or that scene in the drama as the fatal self-contradiction which runs right through it. The Myth (of Evolution) cannot even get going without accepting a good deal from the real sciences. And the real sciences cannot be accepted for a moment unless rational inferences are valid: for every science claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts. It is only by such inferences that you can reach your nebulae and protoplasm and dinosaurs and sub-men and cave-men at all. Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you can have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any palaeontology, any archaeology. To reach the positions held by the real scientists - which are then taken over by the Myth - you must, in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational - if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel - how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect: ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.’ But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’: The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one’s suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up. That it has embedded in it many true particulars I do not doubt: but in its entirety, it simply will not do. Whatever the real universe may turn out to be like, it can’t be like that.” (C.S. Lewis,”The Funeral of a Great Myth,” in “Christian Reflections,” 1967, Hooper, W., ed., Fount: Glasgow UK, Fourth Impression, 1988, pp.117-118)

“Here is a curious case: If Darwin’s naturalism is true, there is no way of even establishing its credibility let alone proving it. Confidence in logic is ruled out. Darwin’s own theory of human origins must therefore be accepted by an act of faith. One must hold that a brain, a device that came to be through natural selection and chance-sponsored mutations, can actually know a proposition or set of propositions to be true. C.S. Lewis puts the case this way: ‘If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the by-products of an irrational process, then clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense of fitness and our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a reality external to ourselves. Our convictions are simply a fact about us - like the colour of our hair. If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform.’ (C.S. Lewis, ‘Miracles: A Preliminary Study,’ 1947, Fontana: London, 1960, Revised Edition, 1963, reprint, p.109] What we need for such certainty is the existence of some ‘Rational Spirit’ outside both ourselves and nature from which our own rationality could derive. Theism assumes such a ground; naturalism does not.” (J.W. Sire, “The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog,” 1976, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1988, pp.94-95)

“The validity of rational thought, accepted in an utterly non-naturalistic, transcendental (if you will), supernatural sense is the necessary presupposition of all other theorizing. There is simply no sense in beginning with a view of the universe and trying to fit in the claims of thought at a later stage. By thinking at all we have claimed that our thoughts are more than mere natural events. All other propositions must be fitted in as best they can around that primary claim.” (C.S. Lewis, “A Christian Reply to Professor Price,” Phoenix Quarterly, vol. 1, No. 1, Autumn 1946)

Questions for discussion:

Modern evolutionary theory (or ToE) reduces the human mind to matter. All thoughts, then, are material events produced by material causes. Material causes do not intend their effects; they merely produce them without reason or understanding. Material causes are therefore irrational.

1) How is it possible to defend ToE with arguments that are the products of irrational material causes (as they must be if ToE is true)?

2) On what grounds could we suppose that arguments for ToE are more trustworthy than arguments against ToE if all arguments are the products of irrational material causes (as they must be if ToE is true)?

3) If ToE is true, how could we possibly know it?

There was a time in the past when Intelligent Design might have seemed a more plausible idea, theologically and scientifically - when people did not know about the shortcomings of our evolved bodies and body processes. The idea that all these "perfect" machinery was the work of a loving supernatural being might have been taken for granted.

Now we know about stuff like the appendix, our unstable lower spines, our badly designed eyes, our troublesome prostates; people suffering with sickle cell anemia - and our ideas have to change.

A god who can design defects into our bodies and pathogenic microbes into our environment, might either be competent or loving, but probably not both. Intelligent design is a burden on religion, in that it forces people to question the diety's competence or His benevolence; his Intelligence and his Designs.

Can we ban Truthdetector? He is nothing more than a dimwitted quoteminer who deludes himself into thinking he's clever by copying and pasting.

I read the statement twice, and I fail to see where they give any reason why ID is bad theology.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”

One aspect of bad theology in creation science is what Ken Miller calls (I think) "Steve Martin Theology", the idea that God left all this empirical reality around showing that species evolved in order to fool us cause He's a "wild and crazy guy". Miller states: "My God doesn't lie." Another aspect of bad theology would be deliberately lying about the empirical evidence the way creation scientists of all stripes do. This could be self-evident to theologians, but maybe needs some exposition for the rest of us.

Donnie B.: "...and science should not try to elevate itself into a comprehensive worldview.” It seems to me that it's the creationists who accuse science of being a comprehensive worldview. Most scientists are perfectly willing to point out the limitations of the scientific method -- for example, its oft-touted inability to prove a negative, such as "God does not exist", or the difficulties of the historical sciences where experimentation is often impossible (we can't, for example, rerun the building of the Grand Canyon at full scale). Science focuses on learning what we can about the natural world, and generally takes a neutral stance on most issues of morality and ethics.

truthdetector: Modern evolutionary theory (or ToE) reduces the human mind to matter.

your sentence should read: If ToE science is true, how could we possibly know it?

Raven,

Yes the tactics are bad theology, but the underlying idea, at least in its weaker form as I described it above, is not. At least they didn’t make any case that it was. If they mean lying to get ID into the schools and lying that it is science is bad theology, then I’d agree. But they should be clear.

By the way, what is the reference for your "60,000 sects" number? I don't believe it. Here is a post where I give some scholarly data with respect to Protestant denominations which presumably are the source of most of those sects. A liberal definition of sect or denomination would still give only about 8000 denominations, and that includes questionable methodology, such as counting all independent Baptist denominations as separate, even when their theology is virtually indistinguishable.

http://helives.blogspot.com/2003/11/200000-protestant-denominations.html

Raven: "What reduced mind to matter is basic science, physics, chemistry etc.."

One seldom sees someone who believes in evolutionary theory so openly admit that science - under the influence of Darwin's theory (and its progeny) - has become indistinguishable from philosophical materialism.

Flint: If most Christians share his needs, then science per se is a genuine threat.

wikipedia: With an estimated number of adherents that ranges between 1.5 billion[167] and 2.1 billion,[167] split into around 34,000 separate denominations, Christianity is the world's largest religion.[168] The Christian share of the world's population has stood at around 33 per cent for the last hundred years.

heddle: I read the statement twice, and I fail to see where they give any reason why ID is bad theology. They simply make an unsubstantiated claim.

LieMaker: One seldom sees someone who believes in evolutionary theory so openly admit that science - under the influence of Darwin’s theory (and its progeny) - has become indistinguishable from philosophical materialism.

Making unsubstantiated claims is theology.

raven: "...science uses methodological naturalism to understand reality, and is not synomous with philosophical materialism, which is just a creo word for atheism."

But you said that science reduces the human mind to mere matter, which makes methodological naturalism a limitation on reality, thereby converting it into metaphysical naturalism (or philosophical materialism).

You also said that "science works no matter what people think about it" (which misses the point). The point you haven't addressed is how the human mind could be capable of either science or engineering if all thoughts are the products of irrational material causes (as they must be if naturalistic evolutionary theory is true).

raven: If you don't want to believe in science, don't. Free country, no one cares. Oddly enough, your car will still start, your computer will run, the drugs still work, and the stores are still filled with food and technological gadgets. Pretty amazing, science works no matter what people think about it.

Flint said:
Now, I’m as far from a Christian theologian as you could imagine, but FL’s point seems very relevant. The Christian religion rests entirely on a sequence of miracles - that their demigod was able to walk on water, transmute elements, rise from the dead, be in two places at once, and other things at the very least not explainable by science. In most cases, not even defined clearly enough to permit the construction of any tests. Jesus was magical, period.

Strikes me as a rather, shall we say, thin and unsatisfying religion that must teach that there really wasn’t any Jesus as described, that these tales (much like the tales of Aesop) were constructed strictly to convey moral lessons, that there isn’t and never has been any intent to pretend these tales have any historical reality, etc. I think I can understand how a Christian might struggle with the notion that his gods are not “real”, but rather an anthropomorphized summary of the stochastic view of reality our frame of reference provides.

I suggest that folks like FL aren’t content to regard their faith in such abstract terms. He probably needs something more visceral - he wants his gods to be more physical entities, who actually DO things science can detect but not explain (to his satisfaction, anyway). He needs to pray at a personality, not at a general pattern of events onto which he has projected an arbitrary “purpose” which just happens to fit his own psychological needs. If most Christians share his needs, then science per se is a genuine threat.

If FL's (and his ilk's) faith requires that there actually be evidence of miracles - his/their faith is pretty weak

I interpret NOMA as meaning that science can't explain miracles, and that the miraculous can't be used to explain phenomena (by those doing science) also that there are questions that both science and religion are ill equipped to handle.

remember that to those that are fundamentalists/ biblical literalists - no amount of logic/reason will convince them to change their minds - we shouldn't try. We can use NOMA as a shield to keep their religion out of science classes

progress in the realm of gadgets is made independent of theory

heddle: If they claim ID is bad theology, then surely they mean it in some substantive sense.

Modern evolutionary theory (or ToE) reduces the human mind to matter. All thoughts, then, are material events produced by material causes. Material causes do not intend their effects; they merely produce them without reason or understanding. Material causes are therefore irrational.

But you said that science reduces the human mind to mere matter, which makes methodological naturalism a limitation on reality, thereby converting it into metaphysical naturalism (or philosophical materialism).

Raven: “What reduced mind to matter is basic science, physics, chemistry etc..” One seldom sees someone who believes in evolutionary theory so openly admit that science - under the influence of Darwin’s theory (and its progeny) - has become indistinguishable from philosophical materialism.

and you also seem to think science itself is more important than it really is.

wikipedia: De Forest's interest in wireless telegraphy led to his invention of the Audion tube in 1906

Old post on what science does for us. The USA is the world's last superpower, economic engine and so on. So what is our edge? A. Is it natural resources? No, we have our share but the former USSR has more. B. Climate? No. Europe is also temperate. C. Population? No. China and India have the cheap skilled and unskilled labor niche with 2.3 billion people between them. D. Is it science and technology? The USA spends between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total world R&D with 4.5% of the world's population. Our edge is being the world leader in R&D. That coupled with a relatively free political system and an entrepreneurial capitalist economy gives us...us. Science + freedom + capitalism = prosperity. The cultists Xians want to kill science while flushing our freedoms into the sewer. This is stupid and suicidal.

That is, you seem to suffer from two problems: you seem to think metaphysics is science, and you also seem to think science itself is more important than it really is.

I cannot answer for ISSR, but to me ID is bad theology because it seems to require God to intervene directly to keep things on course. This implies that God did not create exactly the universe He wanted to, but made mistakes in the act of creation that require later correction. This could well be seen as bad theology.

The Audion (an amplifier) worked even though its inventor Lee DeForest could not correctly explain why.

That is, you seem to suffer from two problems: you seem to think metaphysics is science, and you also seem to think science itself is more important than it really is.

PvM:

I cannot answer for ISSR, but to me ID is bad theology because it seems to require God to intervene directly to keep things on course. This implies that God did not create exactly the universe He wanted to, but made mistakes in the act of creation that require later correction. This could well be seen as bad theology.

Worse, ID sees a gap in our knowledge and fills it with God, only to have God quickly squeezed out when our knowledge increases. History is not a very kind judge of gap approaches, especially ones based on ignorance.

TruthDetector said:

raven: “…science uses methodological naturalism to understand reality, and is not synomous with philosophical materialism, which is just a creo word for atheism.”

But you said that science reduces the human mind to mere matter, which makes methodological naturalism a limitation on reality, thereby converting it into metaphysical naturalism (or philosophical materialism).

You also said that “science works no matter what people think about it” (which misses the point). The point you haven’t addressed is how the human mind could be capable of either science or engineering if all thoughts are the products of irrational material causes (as they must be if naturalistic evolutionary theory is true).

raven: The Xian cultists really do want to destroy our US civilization and head on back to the Dark Ages. They say so often.

if ID is bad theology because it stuffs god into gaps, then ALL theology is bad, because it ALL stuffs god into gaps. even deists stuff god into the “prime mover” gap.

Seems I need to clarify/correct a a couple of things. First, a correction on Copernicus: George Rheticus was in fact not a Lutheran pastor, but a mathematician, Lutheran by confession, and trained at Wittenberg, while Luther was still active there. He spent two years with Copernicus and arranged the publication of Copernicus' work. His religious affiliation did play a role, in a manner of speaking, as Poland was intensely Catholic, and they were burning Lutherans whenever they caught them, so there was an element of courage involved in Rheticus' going there. I apologize for the error.

Clarification: Regarding the limits of the human mind in relation to God, I should have written, "fully comprehend" rather than simply "comprehend." This has important implications for literalist readings of the Bible. To be a literalist is to say that the word of God, as available in the Bible, is exhaustive of God. It basically turns the relationship on its head, and says that whatever people writing--whether inspired or not--from the third century BCE to the second century CE exhausted our ability to understand God, and defined the limits of God's capacities. This is bad theology. It is increasingly the case that much of what goes under the title of Evangelical Christianity these days is surprisingly close to ancient forms of Gnosticism, precisely because of the knowledge claims that are made by its advocates.

More on this another time.

William Wallace:

raven: The Xian cultists really do want to destroy our US civilization and head on back to the Dark Ages. They say so often.

Paul R. Ehrlich is a "Xian"? Eric Pianka is a "Xian"? Al Gore is a "Xian"? Blaming Christianity for the progressive objective of a humanistic, eco-friendly, climate worshipping, reduced population one world neo-feudal system is like blaming Hitler on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Noting that scientific disciplines such as chemistry, physiology, and physics point to the mind being matter does not make mathodological naturalism a limitation on reality, unless the person is saying the mind is all there is in nature. I don’t see such a claim being made on these boards or in science.

PvM:

if ID is bad theology because it stuffs god into gaps, then ALL theology is bad, because it ALL stuffs god into gaps. even deists stuff god into the “prime mover” gap.

Ah, but from science we know that this gap is likely NOT to be filled due to the problem that we cannot see beyond the Planck Time limit. The problem between theology and science arises when theology makes claims of science which are based on our ignorance. Worse is when theology is injected not just as showing a consistency between faith and science, but as providing a causal, testable mechanism. For instance, Newton, failing to be able to explain why orbits of planets were orderly, invoked the necessity of Divine Intervention to restore the orbits. We now know better, and the suggestion that God's Creation was somehow flawed and required Divine Interaction, seems an example of bad theology.

ah so newton’s ignorance was bad theology, but YOUR ignorance is good theology. thanks for clarifying.

PvM:

ah so newton’s ignorance was bad theology, but YOUR ignorance is good theology. thanks for clarifying.

Interesting interpretation of what I said. I would never presume that my ignorance is good theology though.

PvM:

ah so newton’s ignorance was bad theology, but YOUR ignorance is good theology. thanks for clarifying.

Interesting interpretation of what I said. I would never presume that my ignorance is good theology though.

you made an excuse for why deists should not be accused of bad theology based on gaps, and that excuse was based on our ignorance of planck scales. can you give me an example of a theology that is not based on gaps?

if ID is bad theology because it stuffs god into gaps, then ALL theology is bad, because it ALL stuffs god into gaps. even deists stuff god into the “prime mover” gap.

you made an excuse for why deists should not be accused of bad theology based on gaps, and that excuse was based on our ignorance of planck scales. can you give me an example of a theology that is not based on gaps?

Robin: "Noting that scientific disciplines such as chemistry, physiology, and physics point to the mind being matter does not make mathodological naturalism a limitation on reality, unless the person is saying the mind is all there is in nature."

Raven didn't say that those scientific disciplines "point to the mind being matter." He (or she) said: “What reduced mind to matter is basic science, physics, chemistry etc...” Clearly, in saying this, Raven was saying that those scientific displines limit the mind to a wholly material phenomenon, thereby making the methodological naturalism of science into a limitation on reality, which converts methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.

Robin: "The fact is material processes are 'inanimate'; they are not alive and thus cannot be ascribed as either 'rational' or 'irrational' or even 'non-rational'."

Anything that is inanimate lacks reason and understanding (have you ever tried to carry on a conversation with a rock?). Thus, anything that is inanimate is irrational. Scientists have never identified even a single material cause that acts with reason and understanding (the material causes that produce a thunderstorm, for example, do not intend to produce the thunderstorm; they simply do). If mind is reducible to matter (as it must be if evolutionary theory is true), then our thoughts arise from irrational material causes. On what grounds, then, could we ever trust that our thoughts have any correspondence at all to truth? Evolutionary theory can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong. Epistemically speaking, the theory cuts its own throat.

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

irrational: not rational: as (1) not endowed with reason or understanding.

Extremely perceptive point, Snex. Worth repeating. Along those lines, I have a question for you guys. Isn’t the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) ALSO “bad theology”, for the very same reason (stuffing god into gaps) that you claim ID is “bad theology”?

Epistemically speaking, the theory cuts its own throat.

Raven didn’t say that those scientific disciplines “point to the mind being matter.” He (or she) said: “What reduced mind to matter is basic science, physics, chemistry etc…” Clearly, in saying this, Raven was saying that those scientific displines limit the mind to a wholly material phenomenon, thereby making the methodological naturalism of science into a limitation on reality, which converts methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.

If mind is reducible to matter (as it must be if evolutionary theory is true), then our thoughts arise from irrational material causes. On what grounds, then, could we ever trust that our thoughts have any correspondence at all to truth? Evolutionary theory can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong. Epistemically speaking, the theory cuts its own throat.

Extremely perceptive point, Snex. Worth repeating. Along those lines, I have a question for you guys. Isn’t the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) ALSO “bad theology”, for the very same reason (stuffing god into gaps) that you claim ID is “bad theology”?

wikipedia: As noted above, there is a growing body of evidence showing the direct impact of environment and experience on the brain, and this is undermining scientist's ability to exploit dualistic tendencies in popular culture. Nevertheless, the fact that such a tearing-down process has been necessary with the rise of modern neuroscience suggests the degree to which a latent mind-body dualism persists, even in the 21stcentury.

PvM: Theology is the interpretation of the Bible...

Stephen: We have here a number of confident assertions about bad theology. But what does this actually mean? What method does one use to determine whether particular theology is good or bad? (At least when one is talking, as here, of theology meaning "study of god(s)" rather than "study of religion".)

I am particularly intrigued by the assertion that it is really bad theology to imply that God is comprehensible within the limits of human understanding. This is a position that Epimenides would have been proud of. Namely that it is a prerequisite of good theology that all theologians are disqualified from discussing the subject. (True, this only applies to human theologians, but as far as I am aware no orang-utans have yet published on the subject.)

PvM: If I hold by faith that there exists a designer who set all of this in motion, the concept, which to some may be superfluous and to others religious, need not be a gap argument since this is a concept which science can neither prove nor disprove.

Robin: “Noting that scientific disciplines such as chemistry, physiology, and physics point to the mind being matter does not make mathodological naturalism a limitation on reality, unless the person is saying the mind is all there is in nature.”

TD: Raven didn’t say that those scientific disciplines “point to the mind being matter.” He (or she) said: “What reduced mind to matter is basic science, physics, chemistry etc…” Clearly, in saying this, Raven was saying that those scientific displines limit the mind to a wholly material phenomenon, thereby making the methodological naturalism of science into a limitation on reality, which converts methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.

Robin: “The fact is material processes are ‘inanimate’; they are not alive and thus cannot be ascribed as either ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ or even ‘non-rational’.”

Anything that is inanimate lacks reason and understanding (have you ever tried to carry on a conversation with a rock?). Thus, anything that is inanimate is irrational.

Scientists have never identified even a single material cause that acts with reason and understanding (the material causes that produce a thunderstorm, for example, do not intend to produce the thunderstorm; they simply do).

If mind is reducible to matter (as it must be if evolutionary theory is true), then our thoughts arise from irrational material causes.

On what grounds, then, could we ever trust that our thoughts have any correspondence at all to truth?

Evolutionary theory can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong. Epistemically speaking, the theory cuts its own throat.

From Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: irrational: not rational: as (1) not endowed with reason or understanding.

Again, I’m not a theologist. I confess I haven’t the slightest notion of what some people mean when they refer to “gods” or “miracles”. Are these terms supposed to have some real-world referent, such that we can point to something we can actually observe and say “this is a god” or “this is a miracle”? If so, nobody to my knowledge has ever been able to do so successfully.

— Flint

Evolutionary theory can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong. Epistemically speaking, the theory cuts its own throat.

Electromagnetic theory or the Germ Theory of Disease can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong.

Your presumption that reason and understanding need specific material causes is interesting, if irrelevant. The fact is, many process conditions in nature are the result of emergent properties that themselves have no direct causal mechanisms. There is no mechanism that one can point to when looking for how combining hydrogen and oxygen produce the properties of water.

Robin: "...to say that everything that has no capability to reason is thus 'irrational' is plain erroneous and merely demonstrates a lack of education."

Webster - "irrational: (1) not endowed with reason or understanding."

Webster - "rational: (1) having reason or understanding."

To say that something that is not endowed with reason or understanding (that is to say, something that is irrational) nonetheless has reason and understanding (that is to say, is rational) is to say that the thing can be both "A" and "not A" at the same time and in the same sense, thus violating the law of non-contradiction.

If the word "irrational" is throwing you for a loop, substitute the word "unintelligent." Perhaps that will help you to understand the point I've been making. There's no point in our trying to debate the point until you show some sign that you've understood it. But don't strain yourself. It's evident from your hasty retreat into ad hominem argumentation that you can't debate without casting aspersions (i.e., "a lack of education") on those who have views that differ from yours. Whether your presumptive arrogance is inherited or acquired, it certainly doesn't motivate me to want to carry on a conversation with you.

Have a nice day.

Me: "Evolutionary theory can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong. Epistemically speaking, the theory cuts its own throat."

Raven: "This makes as much sense as…

"Electromagnetic theory or the Germ Theory of Disease can be defended as a valid scientific theory only if its materialistic reductionism of the human mind is wrong."

Electromagnetic theory and the germ theory of disease don't reduce the human mind to a wholly material phenomenom. Evolutionary theory - which puts all of its explanatory eggs into a materialistic basket - does. Why? Because evolutionary theory, unlike electromagnetic theory or the germ theory of disease, purports to explain the origin of the human mind.

ID is bad theology because it stuffs God in areas which can and have been filled by science by claiming that science can reliably detect ‘God’ in nature.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

FL: "ID is bad theology because it stuffs God in areas which can and have been filled by science by claiming that science can reliably detect ‘God’ in nature."

Actually, ID theorists repeatedly say that ID can't detect God in nature. For example, design theorists Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards wrote (in "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery"):

"We must distinguish between an argument for design and an argument for the existence of God. While a successful argument for the design of the cosmos provides support for belief in the existence of God, it doesn't prove that the God of traditional belief exists."

Or as biochemist/design theorist Michael Behe wrote (in "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism"):

"...if one wishes to be academically rigorous, one can't leap directly from design to a transcendent God. To reach a transcendent God, other, nonscientific arguments have to be made - philosophical and theological arguments."

Electromagnetic theory and the germ theory of disease don’t reduce the human mind to a wholly material phenomenom. Evolutionary theory - which puts all of its explanatory eggs into a materialistic basket - does. Why? Because evolutionary theory, unlike electromagnetic theory or the germ theory of disease, purports to explain the origin of the human mind.

ID is bad theology because it stuffs God in areas which can and have been filled by science by claiming that science can reliably detect ‘God’ in nature. FL: And yet, isn’t that the very same thing for the Bible too? Stuffing God in areas which evolutionists say “can and have been filled by science”?

After all, (WRT your words about science “detecting” God in nature), Romans 1:20 makes a direct claim that nature itself, just empirically observing the natural world around you, IS in fact sufficient to correctly infer the existence of God.

(In fact, the Bible says it’s so completely sufficient that there’s NO EXCUSE for any human inferring anything else, such as atheism or agnosticism.)

So if ID is “bad theology” for implying (post-hypothesis) that a person can “detect” or correctly infer God’s existence just from observing nature, if ID is “bad theology” for “stuffing gaps”, why do you not go all the way and proclaim that the Bible (including the New Testament) is “bad theology” too?

The bottom line is that when critics try to say that ID is “bad theology”, they heavily obligate themselves to actually demonstrate this claim, and not merely assert it. But it’s really difficult to do that, because in fact the arguments that evolutionists use against ID at the theological level, just happen to be the same arguments that folks have used against Christianity and the Bible itself.

Actually, ID theorists repeatedly say that ID can’t detect God in nature. For example, design theorists Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards wrote (in “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery”): “We must distinguish between an argument for design and an argument for the existence of God. While a successful argument for the design of the cosmos provides support for belief in the existence of God, it doesn’t prove that the God of traditional belief exists.” Or as biochemist/design theorist Michael Behe wrote (in “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”): “…if one wishes to be academically rigorous, one can’t leap directly from design to a transcendent God. To reach a transcendent God, other, nonscientific arguments have to be made - philosophical and theological arguments.”

Electromagnetic theory and the germ theory of disease don’t reduce the human mind to a wholly material phenomenom. Evolutionary theory - which puts all of its explanatory eggs into a materialistic basket - does. Why? Because evolutionary theory, unlike electromagnetic theory or the germ theory of disease, purports to explain the origin of the human mind.

Whether the brain is synonymous with mind, whether mind is the same as soul, and where evolution came from (god invented it is one popular explanation) are open question beyond methodological naturalism.

Not quite. The mind is what the brain does for a living.

The theos better hope that the mind or at least the soul is separate from the brain. If it isn’t, then the minute one dies, the brain becomes a few pounds of meat and the mind and soul are gone. No afterlife.

TruthDetector: If mind is reducible to matter (as it must be if evolutionary theory is true), then our thoughts arise from irrational material causes. On what grounds, then, could we ever trust that our thoughts have any correspondence at all to truth?

"TruthDetector" said: Actually, ID theorists repeatedly say that ID can’t detect God in nature. For example, design theorists Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards wrote . . . (My emphasis)

FL:

ID is bad theology because it stuffs God in areas which can and have been filled by science by claiming that science can reliably detect ‘God’ in nature.

And yet, isn't that the very same thing for the Bible too? Stuffing God in areas which evolutionists say "can and have been filled by science"? After all, (WRT your words about science "detecting" God in nature), Romans 1:20 makes a direct claim that nature itself, just empirically observing the natural world around you, IS in fact sufficient to correctly infer the existence of God. (In fact, the Bible says it's so completely sufficient that there's NO EXCUSE for any human inferring anything else, such as atheism or agnosticism.)

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

So if ID is "bad theology" for implying (post-hypothesis) that a person can "detect" or correctly infer God's existence just from observing nature, if ID is "bad theology" for "stuffing gaps", why do you not go all the way and proclaim that the Bible (including the New Testament) is "bad theology" too? The bottom line is that when critics try to say that ID is "bad theology", they heavily obligate themselves to actually demonstrate this claim, and not merely assert it. But it's really difficult to do that, because in fact the arguments that evolutionists use against ID at the theological level, just happen to be the same arguments that folks have used against Christianity and the Bible itself. FL :)

George Rheticus was in fact not a Lutheran pastor, but a mathematician, Lutheran by confession, and trained at Wittenberg, while Luther was still active there. He spent two years with Copernicus and arranged the publication of Copernicus’ work. His religious affiliation did play a role, in a manner of speaking, as Poland was intensely Catholic, and they were burning Lutherans whenever they caught them, so there was an element of courage involved in Rheticus’ going there. I apologize for the error.

If ToE is true, how could we possibly know it?

Modern evolutionary theory (or ToE) reduces the human mind to matter. All thoughts, then, are material events produced by material causes. Material causes do not intend their effects; they merely produce them without reason or understanding.

On what grounds, then, could we ever trust that our thoughts have any correspondence at all to truth?

Dale Husband: FL, do you take seriously the blasphemous teachings of Young Earth Creationism, that God made the Earth to LOOK billions of years old when it was really only thousands of years old? Why would you beleive in a Creator that is a pathological liar and trickster?

TruthDetector: (have you ever tried to carry on a conversation with a rock?).

W. H. Heydt:

TruthDetector: (have you ever tried to carry on a conversation with a rock?).

Worse...I've tried to carry on conversations with creationists. A rock, by saying nothing, makes more sense than a creationist does by speaking.

Furthermore, Christianity is fairly unique among religions, and absolutely unique (as far as I know) to the extent to which it goes, in arguing that the material world is good, not bad.

But you brazenly declare that Christianity is unique in the extent to which it goes in arguing that the material world is good? You must be out of your f-ing skull.

It's those glasses he wears.

He just can't seem to see anything without them.

However “bare bones” ID, the theological/apologetic argument that the study of God’s creation cannot be in conflict with the study of his word—lest God is a god of confusion—cannot be bad theology.

But you brazenly declare that Christianity is unique in the extent to which it goes in arguing that the material world is good? You must be out of your f-ing skull.

Many even believe that by despoiling the planet, they can hasten the end times and join their Lord in that all important,

What denomination has in its doctrinal statement that we should destroy the planet?

Me: "If ToE is true, how could we possibly know it?"

Torbjörn: "Simple, by defining the process as it is observed to validate observation and to validate theory."

You haven't answered the question that was asked, which suggests that you failed to understand the question in the context of the quotations that preceded it. The question you've answered is this:

"Given minds capable of reason and understanding, how could we know that evolutionary theory is valid?"

The question that was asked was this (in an expanded form):

"Given wholly material minds produced by the blind evolution of matter - minds in which all thoughts are material events produced by irrational material causes - how could we possibly know that evolutionary theory (or anything, for that matter) is true?"

By missing the point of the question, you've demonstrated that C.S. Lewis had it right when he wrote:

"...at the same time the Myth (of mindless evolution) asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational - if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel - how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect: ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.’ But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’: The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one’s suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in their whole style of thought."

If you and I have material minds delivered to us by the blind evolution of matter, then our thoughts are nothing more than "secretions" of electro-chemical activity in our brains. The likelihood that irrationally caused electro-chemical activity would generate thoughts that correspond to realities external to the brain is nil. If mind is matter (as it must be if it is the result of mindless material evolution), we'd have no basis for trusting that our minds are capable of reason and understanding. All of our thoughts would be the products of irrational material causes, not the products of an immaterial intelligence running our mental show. The wholly materialistic conception of a human being offered by evolutionary theory provides no more basis for rationality than it does for free will. If we really are the meat robots that evolutionary theory makes of us, then both rationality and free will are illusions foisted off on us by irrational material causes operating in our brains. To argue that we are rational beings is to argue against materialistic evolutionary theory.

most conservative Christians oppose environmental efforts, which they view as futile as best, heretical at worse. Many even believe that by despoiling the planet, they can hasten the end times and join their Lord

I always find it amusing that fundie creationist whackadoos can be easily "detected" by their use of the word "Truth", with a captial "T". Sort of like the word "Family" in an organization's name means that they hate gays, are pro-forced-maternity, and seek to legalize their own religiously motivated, odious brand of morality.

We look forward to resurrected bodies (Yeah that’s just my theology—no other Christians believe that.)

Robin: “…to say that everything that has no capability to reason is thus ‘irrational’ is plain erroneous and merely demonstrates a lack of education.”

TD: Webster - “irrational: (1) not endowed with reason or understanding.” TD: Webster - “rational: (1) having reason or understanding.” TD: To say that something that is not endowed with reason or understanding (that is to say, something that is irrational) nonetheless has reason and understanding (that is to say, is rational) is to say that the thing can be both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same sense, thus violating the law of non-contradiction.

If the word “irrational” is throwing you for a loop, substitute the word “unintelligent.”

Perhaps that will help you to understand the point I’ve been making.

There’s no point in our trying to debate the point until you show some sign that you’ve understood it.

But don’t strain yourself. It’s evident from your hasty retreat into ad hominem argumentation that you can’t debate without casting aspersions (i.e., “a lack of education”) on those who have views that differ from yours.

Whether your presumptive arrogance is inherited or acquired, it certainly doesn’t motivate me to want to carry on a conversation with you.

Have a nice day.

Cowardly Disembodied Voice: "There was a time in the past when Intelligent Design might have seemed a more plausible idea, theologically and scientifically - when people did not know about the shortcomings of our evolved bodies and body processes. The idea that all these 'perfect' machinery was the work of a loving supernatural being might have been taken for granted. Now we know about stuff like the appendix, our unstable lower spines, our badly designed eyes, our troublesome prostates; people suffering with sickle cell anemia - and our ideas have to change."

One of the most common misconceptions among critics of ID theory is that the word "intelligent" signifies design effected with great mastery. In point of fact, all it signifies is design effected by an intelligent agent (or cause), irrespective of that agent's mastery of design. The Edsel was arguably a failed design, but it was nonetheless the product of intelligent design in the sense used by design theorists. Perhaps the theory should have been called "actual design theory" rather than "intelligent design theory," but design theorists can't be held responsible for the misconceptions of people who won't read any ID literature.

PvM: "You are misrepresenting ID here since it claims that God’s actions can be reliably detected in particular systems."

Actually, ID theory makes no such claim. As Dembski wrote: "Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require that there be a God." All the God talk that springs up around ID theory is inspired by the theory's theistic implications, not by its propositional contents or methodologies. If atheistic Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are free to use the atheistic implications of modern evolutionary theory to pooh-pooh the existence of God, theistic ID proponents are equally free to use the theistic implications of ID theory to support their belief in God. The non-scientific mileage that people try to get out of scientific theories has no bearing on the scientific legitimacy of those theories.

Perhaps the theory should have been called “actual design theory” rather than “intelligent design theory,” but design theorists can’t be held responsible for the misconceptions of people who won’t read any ID literature.

TruthDeflector said: "The non-scientific mileage that people try to get out of scientific theories has no bearing on the scientific legitimacy of those theories."

If atheistic Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are free to use the atheistic implications of modern evolutionary theory to pooh-pooh the existence of God, theistic ID proponents are equally free to use the theistic implications of ID theory to support their belief in God.

TruthDeflector said: "If the word "irrational" is throwing you for a loop, substitute the word "unintelligent."

Robin: "Noting that someone is lacking in education is not an ad hominem."

Trying to discredit an argument by casting aspersions on the person making the argument is the very essence of ad hominem argumentation. This is especially so when a mere semantic disagreement causes you to disparage me as "lacking in education."

Robin: "...you’re the one who decided to repeat dishonestly the canard regarding material processes being irrational when I explained, quite nicely and clearly I might add, how the such terms are erroneous in such a context...

Uh-huh. Describing my use of the word "irrational" to describe material causes that are incapable of acting with reason and understanding as "pure nonsense" and as "pure and utter equivocational BS" is the height of cordiality. Rather than addressing the substance of my argument, you began a pedantic tirade on semantics. Such pedantry tends to hinder understanding, not promote it. Clearly your main purpose is to belittle me, not deal with my arguments in a substantive way.

Have a nice day.

Wolfhound: I always find it amusing that fundie creationist whackadoos can be easily "detected" by their use of the word "Truth", with a captial "T". Sort of like the word "Family" in an organization's name means that they hate gays, are pro-forced-maternity, and seek to legalize their own religiously motivated, odious brand of morality.

Flint: "First, there’s no such thing as 'ID theory'. Theories are based on evidence, and there is no ID evidence. Evidence results from research, and there is no ID research. Research is done by researchers, and there are no ID researchers, no ID research budget, no ID research proposals. Nothing. So let’s at least make an attempt to be honest here."

OK. Since everything you've said here is demonstrably false, why don't you start?

TruthDeflector: Flint: "First, there’s no such thing as 'ID theory'. Theories are based on evidence, and there is no ID evidence. Evidence results from research, and there is no ID research. Research is done by researchers, and there are no ID researchers, no ID research budget, no ID research proposals. Nothing. So let’s at least make an attempt to be honest here." OK. Since everything you've said here is demonstrably false, why don't you start?

We must distinguish between an argument for design and an argument for the existence of God.

Paul: "TruthDeflector, are you declaring your own prophet’s declaration 'I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time…' as 'demonstrably false'?"

Flint said there is "no such thing as ID theory." Johnson said that ID theory is not yet a "fully worked out scheme" that is comparable in theoretical maturity to that achieved by evolutionary theory (which has undergone some 150 years of massaging by evolutionary biologists). I agree with Johnson. I've often said in debates that ID lacks theoretical and evidentiary maturity, but that's not the same as saying that there is "no such thing as ID theory." I've also said that I agree with the position taken by Discovery Institute; namely, that because ID lacks theoretical maturity, school boards should not mandate its teaching in the public schools. If the word "theory" applies only to propositions that have been fleshed out by testing and observation to the point that they win the acceptance of most scientists, then the proposition that Darwin presented in "The Origins of Species" was not a theory.

Robin: “Noting that someone is lacking in education is not an ad hominem.”

Trying to discredit an argument by casting aspersions on the person making the argument is the very essence of ad hominem argumentation. This is especially so when a mere semantic disagreement causes you to disparage me as “lacking in education.”

RobinComment #146674 on March 17, 2008 3:20 PM: Apparently your misunderstanding of lexicography has enhanced your lack of understanding of Latin roots. Terms with the prefixes “ir”, “il”, “im”, and “in” are understood in context of a set. Thus, those things that fall outside the set cannot be described (accurately anyway) as being related to that set. Once again, to say that everything that has no capability to reason is thus “irrational” is plain erroneous and merely demonstrates a lack of education.

Robin: “…you’re the one who decided to repeat dishonestly the canard regarding material processes being irrational when I explained, quite nicely and clearly I might add, how the such terms are erroneous in such a context…

Uh-huh. Describing my use of the word “irrational” to describe material causes that are incapable of acting with reason and understanding as “pure nonsense” and as “pure and utter equivocational BS” is the height of cordiality.

Rather than addressing the substance of my argument, you began a pedantic tirade on semantics.

Such pedantry tends to hinder understanding, not promote it.

Clearly your main purpose is to belittle me, not deal with my arguments in a substantive way.

Have a nice day.

Robin: "Sorry to hurt your feelings with that fact, but if you are going to continue to be rude and arrogant in your responses, I will respond in kind."

I invite you to re-read all the things I wrote before you made rude and demeaning comments about me. You weren't responding in kind, you were taking the conversation into new and unpleasant waters. Blogs like Panda's Thumb seem to be a competition among the regulars to see who can be the most insulting towards those who don't share their faith in evolutionary theory. The most pleasurable part of my day will be putting this unpleasant blog behind me.

Have a nice day.

If the word “theory” applies only to propositions that have been fleshed out by testing and observation to the point that they win the acceptance of most scientists, then the proposition that Darwin presented in “The Origins of Species” was not a theory.

Truthdeflector: If mind is reducible to matter..., then our thoughts arise from irrational material causes.

If mind is reducible to matter, then our thoughts arise from material causes.

Robin: “Sorry to hurt your feelings with that fact, but if you are going to continue to be rude and arrogant in your responses, I will respond in kind.”

I invite you to re-read all the things I wrote before you made rude and demeaning comments about me. You weren’t responding in kind, you were taking the conversation into new and unpleasant waters. Blogs like Panda’s Thumb seem to be a competition among the regulars to see who can be the most insulting towards those who don’t share their faith in evolutionary theory. The most pleasurable part of my day will be putting this unpleasant blog behind me.

Robin: “The fact is material processes are ‘inanimate’; they are not alive and thus cannot be ascribed as either ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ or even ‘non-rational’.”

Anything that is inanimate lacks reason and understanding (have you ever tried to carry on a conversation with a rock?). Thus, anything that is inanimate is irrational.

Truthdetector: "If the word 'theory' applies only to propositions that have been fleshed out by testing and observation to the point that they win the acceptance of most scientists, then the proposition that Darwin presented in 'The Origins of Species' was not a theory."

Henry: "At the time at which it was first presented, it was a hypothesis."

Why, then, did Darwin make repeated references to "the theory of descent with modification" in "The Origins of Species"?

Actually, ID theorists repeatedly say that ID can’t detect God in nature. For example, design theorists Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards wrote (in “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery”): “We must distinguish between an argument for design and an argument for the existence of God...."

FL, do you take seriously the blasphemous teachings of Young Earth Creationism, that God made the Earth to LOOK billions of years old when it was really only thousands of years old? Why would you beleive in a Creator that is a pathological liar and trickster?

Why, then, did Darwin make repeated references to “the theory of descent with modification” in “The Origins of Species”?

Calvin (and others)- as far as I am aware there was not a regularised dictionary definition used by scientists for the words hypothesis, theory etc in the 19th century. Quibbling about words in this way is pointless, although it never stops the Creationists.

ID actually ISN’T “stuffing God” into any “gaps.”

... who also worships the words written by men, rather than the world written, supposedly, by his god.

guthrie: "Quibbling about words in this way is pointless, although it never stops the Creationists."

After wading through the arguments here, guthrie, it's obvious to me that the quibbling over semantics has come almost exclusively from the evolutionist side of the debate. Truthdetector, for example, wanted a word to emphasize that material causes act without reason and understanding, so he (or she) used the word "irrational." Whether a person agrees with that word choice or not, the meaning that Truthdetector wanted the word to carry was clear enough. Quibbling that it was the wrong word was pointless pedantry that added nothing but bile to the conversation.

FL: Dale, do you realize that you are calling the opening chapters and historical claims of Genesis "blasphemy"? Do you realize that you are directly calling God "a pathological liar" if the Genesis creation account happens to be historically accurate? (You gotta be kidding me dude! What religion did you say you belonged to again?)

You know and I know that, regardless of ID or Evolution or anything else, the Bible itself does say that God created and populated our earth in six days, six literal mornings and evenings. In addition, The Bible also reports that Adam and Eve were the result of a supernatural creative miracle by which they looked like (and indeed were!) full grown adults on their very first day of existence. Normal time processes were superseded. In the New Testament, Jesus also did multiple "apparent-age" miracles, such as the feeding of the 5000 and the instant regenerative healing of a man's withered hand. In every case, the affected object was left looking WAY WAY OLDER than it actualy was. And it didn't bother Him to do it this way. What God did on a personal level, he can do on a planetary level. He's not limited to any evolutionist's uniformitarian interpretations. He wanted to model six days work and one day's rest to us humans (hat tip to Dr. Kurt Wise), so that is why he created in six normal Earth days instead of doing it instantly, or taking 4 billion years. *** Evolutionists and Skeptics already know this, Dale. (At least the Bible-literate ones.) So what they've done, is to come up with a completely anti-biblical argument designed to impugn God's character UNLESS he (God) bows down to THEM and limits HIS creative activity to whatever THEIR chosen religion of Darwinism says actually happened in Earth history. That's the "deceiver argument" which you happily offered in your post, Dale. But the deceiver argument is NOT science. It's theology. Theology from Hell, to be very honest with you, because it's a direct attack against the sovereignty and character of BOTH God the Creator AND the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as an attack on the authority and reliability of God's Word, the Scriptures. And the deceiver argument is FALSE for another reason too. God does not deceive us because God dispenses information to humans (such as God's Word) so that we humans can *choose* to believe and place trust in the truth. When Jesus changed water into wine (another time-altering miracle), the eyewitness servants were available to give the correct origins information. God is not out to deceive or lie to us; he has TOLD US what's going on. We just gotta stop rejecting what He tells us, eh?? *** Okay, that answers your inquiry Dale. Consider well! FL

Flint said there is “no such thing as ID theory.” Johnson said that ID theory is not yet a “fully worked out scheme” that is comparable in theoretical maturity to that achieved by evolutionary theory (which has undergone some 150 years of massaging by evolutionary biologists). I agree with Johnson.

After wading through the arguments here, guthrie, it’s obvious to me that the quibbling over semantics has come almost exclusively from the evolutionist side of the debate. Truthdetector, for example, wanted a word to emphasize that material causes act without reason and understanding, so he (or she) used the word “irrational.” Whether a person agrees with that word choice or not, the meaning that Truthdetector wanted the word to carry was clear enough. Quibbling that it was the wrong word was pointless pedantry that added nothing but bile to the conversation.

“(If the) mind is a product of the irrational (which materialistic-naturalistic evolution claims it is) then how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution?

FL: Well, once again we got ourselves another hale ‘n’ hearty set of disagreements. But I kinda enjoy this one particularly. ***

TruthDetector wrote, Actually, ID theorists repeatedly say that ID can’t detect God in nature. For example, design theorists Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards wrote (in “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery”): “We must distinguish between an argument for design and an argument for the existence of God….”

Excellent point from an excellent book. (I have my own copy of The Privileged Planet, and therefore I can state that TruthDetector is indeed accurate on the point.)

This is an additional rational reason for not accepting PvM’s statement that ID is “bad theology”, because honestly guys, ID actually ISN’T “stuffing God” into any “gaps.”

Drs. Gonzalez and Richards make this point very clearly, as quoted above.

This is an additional rational reason for not accepting PvM’s statement that ID is “bad theology”, because honestly guys, ID actually ISN’T “stuffing God” into any “gaps.”

“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

— Dembski

You know and I know that, regardless of ID or Evolution or anything else, the Bible itself does say that God created and populated our earth in six days, six literal mornings and evenings.

— FL

guthrie: “Quibbling about words in this way is pointless, although it never stops the Creationists.”

Calvin said: After wading through the arguments here, guthrie, it’s obvious to me that the quibbling over semantics has come almost exclusively from the evolutionist side of the debate. Truthdetector, for example, wanted a word to emphasize that material causes act without reason and understanding, so he (or she) used the word “irrational.” Whether a person agrees with that word choice or not, the meaning that Truthdetector wanted the word to carry was clear enough. Quibbling that it was the wrong word was pointless pedantry that added nothing but bile to the conversation.

Calvin: Truthdetector: "If the word 'theory' applies only to propositions that have been fleshed out by testing and observation to the point that they win the acceptance of most scientists, then the proposition that Darwin presented in 'The Origins of Species' was not a theory." Henry: "At the time at which it was first presented, it was a hypothesis." Why, then, did Darwin make repeated references to "the theory of descent with modification" in "The Origins of Species"?

Robin,

I still think you're pedantically obsessing over TruthDetector's use of the word "irrational" to describe material causes. You say that using the word in that way amounts to both the uneducated use of language and fallacious logic, because it anthropomorphizes material causes. But I don't see how that's the case. TruthDetector didn't attribute the human quality of rationality to material causes; he (or she) did precisely the opposite by saying that material causes are irrational (i.e., "not endowed with reason or understanding" - which is the first definition of "irrational" given by my Webster's). Your comparison of TruthDetector's using the word "irrational" to describe material causes to using the word "hydrophobic" to describe fire doesn't work, because the latter attributes a human quality to fire, while the former does not attribute a human quality to material causes. TruthDetector's point - which seemed quite clear to me - was that material causes do not act with reason or understanding, they simply act. In that sense, material causes can be described as irrational. Therefore, why should we expect thoughts that arise from irrational material causes to possess reason or understanding? I don't think you refute TruthDetector's argument by obsessing on semantics.

In any event, if you still think that using the word "irrational" as TruthDetector used it is uneducated, logically fallacious, and offensive to all guardians of semantic purity, then let me ask you this: Some numbers are described (by mathematicians) as "irrational." Does that mean that mathematicians are a bunch of uneducated boobs who are trying to anthropomorphize those numbers, and that they need a tongue lashing from you to straighten them out?

If you and I have material minds delivered to us by the blind evolution of matter, then our thoughts are nothing more than “secretions” of electro-chemical activity in our brains. The likelihood that irrationally caused electro-chemical activity would generate thoughts that correspond to realities external to the brain is nil. If mind is matter (as it must be if it is the result of mindless material evolution), we’d have no basis for trusting that our minds are capable of reason and understanding. All of our thoughts would be the products of irrational material causes, not the products of an immaterial intelligence running our mental show. The wholly materialistic conception of a human being offered by evolutionary theory provides no more basis for rationality than it does for free will. If we really are the meat robots that evolutionary theory makes of us, then both rationality and free will are illusions foisted off on us by irrational material causes operating in our brains. To argue that we are rational beings is to argue against materialistic evolutionary theory.

If we really are the meat robots that evolutionary theory makes of us, then both rationality and free will are illusions foisted off on us by irrational material causes operating in our brains. To argue that we are rational beings is to argue against materialistic evolutionary theory.

teach wrote: When Darwin finished on "The Beagle", my guess is that what he had in his head was a hypothesis. During the next 20 years, he accumulated enough evidence to develop the idea into a theory. In "Origin", he certainly provides that evidence and successfully uses this brand new theory to explain and predict natural phenomena.

If we really are the meat robots that evolutionary theory makes of us, then both rationality and free will are illusions foisted off on us by irrational material causes operating in our brains. To argue that we are rational beings is to argue against materialistic evolutionary theory.

Among other things, Calvin, the term "hydrophobic" is never used to refer to fire. The term "hydrophobic" is used either in Biology as an archaic term to describe a mammal suffering from the disease now called "rabies," or in Chemistry to describe any various nonpolar organic compounds that repel water and are incapable of mixing directly with water. And as such, the idea that fire is "hydrophobic" is childish and absurd, as, only a complete fool would attempt to imply that fire can be afflicted by a rhabdovirus (the pathogen of rabies), or that it would repel water.

What I'm trying to say, Calvin, is that the very idea that you could come in here and chastise us because we chastise Creationists and other unctuous, pious charlatans for maliciously mincing words with the specific intent to beguile people is pure hypocrisy, especially since you, yourself, are engaging in a very slopping word game in order to trick us with your scoldings.

Furthermore, "Truth"Detector is resurrecting the old, fallacious Creationist chestnut of "If our minds arose from lesser animals via natural processes, then our minds may be fallible. Then the conclusions that we come up with are subject to doubt, including the conclusion of evolution itself."

I mean, really, before you continue with your tirade of finger-wagging and admonishments, please go read an English dictionary, and a book on scientific terminology, and a book on logic first. We've heard the whole "you're a bunch of mean meanies because you're not nice to those poor Creationists who didn't do anything to earn any respect or even any civil response" routine before.

Stanton: "Among other things, Calvin, the term “hydrophobic” is never used to refer to fire."

You should take this up with Robin. She's the one who linked "fire" and "hydrophobic" to try to show that TruthDetector misused the word "irrational."

Calvin: Stanton: "Among other things, Calvin, the term “hydrophobic” is never used to refer to fire." You should take this up with Robin. She's the one who linked "fire" and "hydrophobic" to try to show that TruthDetector misused the word "irrational."

Furthermore, “Truth”Detector is resurrecting the old, fallacious Creationist chestnut of “If our minds arose from lesser animals via natural processes, then our minds may be fallible. Then the conclusions that we come up with are subject to doubt, including the conclusion of evolution itself.”

You haven’t answered the question that was asked,

“Given wholly material minds produced by the blind evolution of matter - minds in which all thoughts are material events produced by irrational material causes - how could we possibly know that evolutionary theory (or anything, for that matter) is true?”

Henry J:

Furthermore, “Truth”Detector is resurrecting the old, fallacious Creationist chestnut of “If our minds arose from lesser animals via natural processes, then our minds may be fallible. Then the conclusions that we come up with are subject to doubt, including the conclusion of evolution itself.”

Not to mention that that argument applies just as much to what he's saying as to what anybody's saying in response to him. Henry

TD: "You haven’t answered the question that was asked."

Torbjörn: "Oh, but I did - you just didn’t like the answer. But the fact is that we can test a theory without having to worry about all details in the experiments, such as if our test mass in a gravity experiment is copper or aluminum, or if the experimenters mind is affected by caffeine or not."

It's clear to me that you didn't answer the question asked by TruthDetector. Your answer was based on the premise that our thoughts can be rational. TD was asking how we can trust that our thoughts can be rational if they are the products of irrational material causes, which is necessarily the case if our minds originated from the blind evolution of matter. If I've correctly understood TD's argument, I think it could be restated in this way:

1) Everything that begins has a cause.

2) Each thought has a beginning.

3) Therefore, each thought has a cause.

4) In a wholly material universe, all causes are material causes that act without reason or understanding, that is to say, they are irrational causes.

5) The wholly materialistic conception of the human mind offered by evolutionary theory entails that all thoughts are material phenomena with irrational material causes.

6) Irrational causes (i.e., causes that act without reason or understanding) do not produce rational effects (i.e., effects that possess reason and understanding).

7) Therefore, the materialistic conception of the mind offered by evolutionary theory provides no grounds for trusting that our thoughts can be rational. Even the very act of trying to validate our thoughts against external realities would involve thoughts with irrational material causes. How could we trust that those thoughts are rational?

Looked at in this way, I think TD's argument has even wider implications, which can be expressed in the form of a question: Unless mind, not matter, is the ultimate reality, why should we expect the operation of the universe to be governed by physical laws?

Torbjörn: "You are trying to apply philosophy on science (and on rationality of minds), but you can’t get any traction there as science works (and minds are rational)."

TD wasn't arguing that our minds aren't rational. He (or she) was arguing that if mind is matter, then we have no grounds for trusting that irrationally produced thoughts can themselves be rational. It follows that if our thoughts are rational, then the material explanation of the mind offered by evolutionary theory - which invokes nothing but irrational material causes - is false.

Calvin: I still think you’re pedantically obsessing over TruthDetector’s use of the word “irrational” to describe material causes.

You say that using the word in that way amounts to both the uneducated use of language and fallacious logic, because it anthropomorphizes material causes. But I don’t see how that’s the case.

TruthDetector didn’t attribute the human quality of rationality to material causes; he (or she) did precisely the opposite by saying that material causes are irrational (i.e., “not endowed with reason or understanding” - which is the first definition of “irrational” given by my Webster’s).

Your comparison of TruthDetector’s using the word “irrational” to describe material causes to using the word “hydrophobic” to describe fire doesn’t work, because the latter attributes a human quality to fire, while the former does not attribute a human quality to material causes.

TruthDetector’s point - which seemed quite clear to me - was that material causes do not act with reason or understanding, they simply act. In that sense, material causes can be described as irrational.

Therefore, why should we expect thoughts that arise from irrational material causes to possess reason or understanding? I don’t think you refute TruthDetector’s argument by obsessing on semantics.

In any event, if you still think that using the word “irrational” as TruthDetector used it is uneducated, logically fallacious, and offensive to all guardians of semantic purity, then let me ask you this: Some numbers are described (by mathematicians) as “irrational.” Does that mean that mathematicians are a bunch of uneducated boobs who are trying to anthropomorphize those numbers, and that they need a tongue lashing from you to straighten them out?

"Irrational" again?

Cue Inigo Montoya.

Okay, for the hard-of-thinking: When you say "irrational", even though you pretend not to, you are implying that the processes from which things like minds evolve do not obey any laws, or are not subject to regularity. But they do, and they are. Minds are as natural-law-abiding and regular as the processes that made them.

Now please stop deliberately muddying the waters with the word "irrational". Thank you.

Robin: "I will not put up with attaching undo and misapplied emotional baggage to inanimate concepts."

It's clear to me that all the "emotional baggage" here is yours. TruthDetector was simply applying the word "irrational" to material causes to emphasize that those causes act without reason or understanding. You may think that "inanimate" would work just as well, but since TD clearly explained how he (or she) was using the word "irrational," your nearly hysterical semantic pedantry contributes nothing to the conversation.

You say that the word "rational" can be applied only to entities capable of thinking. Well, by the same token, the word "animate" can be applied only to entities capable of living. Thus, if "irrational" can't be applied to entities that don't think, then "inanimate" can't be applied to entities that don't live.

I eagerly await your next etymological tap dance.

fnxtr: "Minds are as natural-law-abiding and regular as the processes that made them."

If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn't the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory? Clearly, the wide range of human thinking can't be attributed to natural law. When we step off the roof of a building, we can reliably expect to fall down, not up, because we must obey the law of gravity. But if our thoughts must also follow natural laws, why do our thoughts go in so many different directions?

Stanton: “Among other things, Calvin, the term “hydrophobic” is never used to refer to fire.”

You should take this up with Robin. She’s the one who linked “fire” and “hydrophobic” to try to show that TruthDetector misused the word “irrational.”

If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn’t the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory?

Calvin: Robin: "I will not put up with attaching undo and misapplied emotional baggage to inanimate concepts." It's clear to me that all the "emotional baggage" here is yours. TruthDetector was simply applying the word "irrational" to material causes to emphasize that those causes act without reason or understanding. You may think that "inanimate" would work just as well, but since TD clearly explained how he (or she) was using the word "irrational," your nearly hysterical semantic pedantry contributes nothing to the conversation.

You say that the word "rational" can be applied only to entities capable of thinking. Well, by the same token, the word "animate" can be applied only to entities capable of living. Thus, if "irrational" can't be applied to entities that don't think, then "inanimate" can't be applied to entities that don't live.

Calvin: fnxtr: "Minds are as natural-law-abiding and regular as the processes that made them." If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn't the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory? Clearly, the wide range of human thinking can't be attributed to natural law. When we step off the roof of a building, we can reliably expect to fall down, not up, because we must obey the law of gravity. But if our thoughts must also follow natural laws, why do our thoughts go in so many different directions?

Robin:

Stanton: “Among other things, Calvin, the term “hydrophobic” is never used to refer to fire.”

You should take this up with Robin. She’s the one who linked “fire” and “hydrophobic” to try to show that TruthDetector misused the word “irrational.”

First, just an FYI: "she" should be "he". Second, since calling fire hydrophobic is as mistaken as calling material processes irrational, I'd say it is pretty obvious that Stanton is supporting my point.

Robin: “I will not put up with attaching undo and misapplied emotional baggage to inanimate concepts.”

Calvin: It’s clear to me that all the “emotional baggage” here is yours. TruthDetector was simply applying the word “irrational” to material causes to emphasize that those causes act without reason or understanding. You may think that “inanimate” would work just as well, but since TD clearly explained how he (or she) was using the word “irrational,” your nearly hysterical semantic pedantry contributes nothing to the conversation.

You say that the word “rational” can be applied only to entities capable of thinking. Well, by the same token, the word “animate” can be applied only to entities capable of living. Thus, if “irrational” can’t be applied to entities that don’t think, then “inanimate” can’t be applied to entities that don’t live.

I eagerly await your next etymological tap dance.

Fnxtr: “Irrational” again? Cue Inigo Montoya. Okay, for the hard-of-thinking: When you say “irrational”, even though you pretend not to, you are implying that the processes from which things like minds evolve do not obey any laws, or are not subject to regularity. But they do, and they are. Minds are as natural-law-abiding and regular as the processes that made them. Now please stop deliberately muddying the waters with the word “irrational”. Thank you.

GuyeFaux:

If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn’t the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory?

About as stupid as declaring that since weather obeys natural laws, we should be able to predict it perfectly accurately for any length of time.

Me: "If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn’t the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory?"

GuyeFaux: "About as stupid as declaring that since weather obeys natural laws, we should be able to predict it perfectly accurately for any length of time."

You missed the point (should I call you "stupid" on that account?). Given identical conditions (something that never obtains), weather events should always be the same in obedience to natural laws, regardless of our ability to predict those events (something we can't do with much precision because we never have complete knowledge of the conditions). Likewise, given an identical stimulus (such as the question "Is abortion moral?") our thoughts should be the same if some natural law determines our response to that stimulus. If our thoughts are determined by natural law, perhaps they vary because the conditions provoking them are never exactly the same. Even so, we'd have no reason to suppose that our thoughts can be rational (i.e., possessing reason and understanding) simply because they are obedient to natural laws. We might also wonder why - if our thoughts are determined by natural laws - we cling to the same thought (such as "Abortion is moral") regardless of the conditions that give rise to that thought. We might also wonder why we ever change our minds if our thoughts are determined by natural law. Obedience to natural law is not a promising explanation for the rationality of human thinking, as Fnxtr seemed to be arguing.

phantomreader42: "These nutcases are approaching fractal wrongness here, if they haven’t reached it already."

No wonder that no one who doesn't already worship in the Church of Darwin doesn't stick around this blog for long. There seems to be no one in the congregation who can argue in a civil manner. It seems that the blog exists primarily for the purpose of allowing members of the congregation to show that they can behave like asses. In that light, the blog can be seen by even a casual observer as a resounding success.

Ta-ta.

Calvin: “If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn’t the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory?”

GuyeFaux: “About as stupid as declaring that since weather obeys natural laws, we should be able to predict it perfectly accurately for any length of time.”

Calvin: You missed the point (should I call you “stupid” on that account?). Given identical conditions (something that never obtains), weather events should always be the same in obedience to natural laws, regardless of our ability to predict those events (something we can’t do with much precision because we never have complete knowledge of the conditions). Likewise, given an identical stimulus (such as the question “Is abortion moral?”) our thoughts should be the same if some natural law determines our response to that stimulus. If our thoughts are determined by natural law, perhaps they vary because the conditions provoking them are never exactly the same.

Calvin: Even so, we’d have no reason to suppose that our thoughts can be rational (i.e., possessing reason and understanding) simply because they are obedient to natural laws.

We might also wonder why - if our thoughts are determined by natural laws - we cling to the same thought (such as “Abortion is moral”) regardless of the conditions that give rise to that thought. We might also wonder why we ever change our minds if our thoughts are determined by natural law. Obedience to natural law is not a promising explanation for the rationality of human thinking, as Fnxtr seemed to be arguing.

The double-negative in my farewell statement was unintentional. My departure is intentional. Oops...that can't be...I should instead say that my departure has been compelled by some natural law.

About as stupid as declaring that since weather obeys natural laws, we should be able to predict it perfectly accurately for any length of time.

— Calvin

You missed the point (should I call you “stupid” on that account?). Given identical conditions (something that never obtains), weather events should always be the same in obedience to natural laws, regardless of our ability to predict those events (something we can’t do with much precision because we never have complete knowledge of the conditions). Likewise, given an identical stimulus (such as the question “Is abortion moral?”) our thoughts should be the same if some natural law determines our response to that stimulus.

Calvin: If I've correctly understood TD's argument, I think it could be restated in this way: 1) Everything that begins has a cause. 2) Each thought has a beginning. 3) Therefore, each thought has a cause. 4) In a wholly material universe, all causes are material causes that act without reason or understanding, that is to say, they are irrational causes. 5) The wholly materialistic conception of the human mind offered by evolutionary theory entails that all thoughts are material phenomena with irrational material causes. 6) Irrational causes (i.e., causes that act without reason or understanding) do not produce rational effects (i.e., effects that possess reason and understanding). 7) Therefore, the materialistic conception of the mind offered by evolutionary theory provides no grounds for trusting that our thoughts can be rational. Even the very act of trying to validate our thoughts against external realities would involve thoughts with irrational material causes. How could we trust that those thoughts are rational?

Truthdeflector: The most pleasurable part of my day will be putting this unpleasant blog behind me.

Calvin: Ta-ta.

If our thoughts are obedient to natural laws, why do we ever disagree with one another? Shouldn’t the natural law that causes you to accept evolutionary theory cause everyone to accept evolutionary theory?

“I think, therefore I am.”

“I am, therefore I think.”

“Well, that certainly puts Descartes before deshorse.”

"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- 'I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.'"

Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?)

The fact that we humans think at all, is one more item that evolution cannot explain.

FL :)

FL: The fact that we humans think at all, is one more item that evolution cannot explain. FL :)

The fact that we humans think at all, is one more item that evolution cannot explain.

— FL

The fact that we humans think at all, is one more item that evolution cannot explain.

I agree that evolution cannot satisfactorily explain this fact (yet).

“Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum – ‘I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.’” Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?)

FL said: The fact that we humans think at all, is one more item that evolution cannot explain. FL :)

Calvin: Given identical conditions (something that never obtains), weather events should always be the same in obedience to natural laws, regardless of our ability to predict those events (something we can't do with much precision because we never have complete knowledge of the conditions). Likewise, given an identical stimulus (such as the question "Is abortion moral?") our thoughts should be the same if some natural law determines our response to that stimulus. If our thoughts are determined by natural law, perhaps they vary because the conditions provoking them are never exactly the same.