The Disco 'Tute runs a bait and switch on BioLogos

As William Dembski plainly said,

Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.

sparc said:

As William Dembski plainly said,

Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.

Science can not and should not be friendly to theistic evolution either. Biologos is a religious endeavor that may help christians to cope with the challenges science throws on their belief. But it has definitly nothing to do with science.

On the other hand, if theistic evolutionists aren’t using their religious faith to supplant science or trump reality, why should they be attacked for having faith?

If they are claiming without evidence that some intelligent being has been tweaking evolution to produce us, that evolution is not undirected, then that doesn’t seem to me to be consonant with science.

Stanton said: On the other hand, if theistic evolutionists aren't using their religious faith to supplant science or trump reality, why should they be attacked for having faith?

Stephen P said:

On the other hand, if theistic evolutionists aren’t using their religious faith to supplant science or trump reality, why should they be attacked for having faith?

If they are claiming without evidence that some intelligent being has been tweaking evolution to produce us, that evolution is not undirected, then that doesn't seem to me to be consonant with science.

SWT said:

Stephen P said:

On the other hand, if theistic evolutionists aren’t using their religious faith to supplant science or trump reality, why should they be attacked for having faith?

If they are claiming without evidence that some intelligent being has been tweaking evolution to produce us, that evolution is not undirected, then that doesn't seem to me to be consonant with science.

There are, I think, a number of flavors of theistic evolution (TE). One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty -- no intervention or tweaking is required. Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology. FWIW, this is my position.

One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty – no intervention or tweaking is required. Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have."

RBH, I don't think that any of this was particularly surprising to Darrel or to BioLogos. Disappointing, yes. Unexpected, no. Darrel is an extremely gracious person, but he is anything but naive.

Steve Matheson's critique is also worth hearing, and I agree with Steve on almost all of it. I think it's pretty clear that BioLogos co-sponsoring this meeting was not an endorsement of the other groups or some sort of intellectual capitulation in the name of Christian unity. It was an opportunity to have a Christian view that accepts mainstream biology at the table in front of thoughtful Christians, many of whom are leaders in their congregations.

One sincere question, asked of Steve Meyer at one of the DI sessions, was this (I may not recall it exactly word-for-word, but this was the gist):

"How can it be, that Darrel Falk, a man of such integrity, can look at your evidence and come to such a different conclusion than you?"

That pretty much sums up the meeting in a nutshell for me.

SWT said: One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty -- no intervention or tweaking is required. Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology. FWIW, this is my position.

There are, I think, a number of flavors of theistic evolution (TE). One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty – no intervention or tweaking is required. Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology. FWIW, this is my position.

Aagcobb said: I have no problem with that. Its dangerous to promote the meme that evolutionary theory is inherently atheistic-that's the enemy's argument.

Dennis Venema said: [SNIP] One sincere question, asked of Steve Meyer at one of the DI sessions, was this (I may not recall it exactly word-for-word, but this was the gist): "How can it be, that Darrel Falk, a man of such integrity, can look at your evidence and come to such a different conclusion than you?" That pretty much sums up the meeting in a nutshell for me.

FL said:

One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty – no intervention or tweaking is required. Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology.

In other words, (borrowing a line from evolutionist H. Allen Orr),

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have."

FL

RBH said:

Dennis Venema said: [SNIP] One sincere question, asked of Steve Meyer at one of the DI sessions, was this (I may not recall it exactly word-for-word, but this was the gist): "How can it be, that Darrel Falk, a man of such integrity, can look at your evidence and come to such a different conclusion than you?" That pretty much sums up the meeting in a nutshell for me.

What was Meyer's answer?

Dennis Venema said: Eventually these sessions will be online, so you can parse it for yourself.

Meyer left the impression that the data was so new that Falk hadn't seen it yet. I can't recall offhand exactly what "evidence" was under discussion at that point.

Aagcobb said: Its dangerous to promote the meme that evolutionary theory is inherently atheistic-that's the enemy's argument.

mrg said:

SWT said: One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty -- no intervention or tweaking is required. Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology. FWIW, this is my position.

The idea that the G-Man is actually tweaking evolution as it goes along is sort of playing footsie with intelligent design and is a fair target. The notion that evolution is simply part of the G-man's Big Plan doesn't raise any objections to scientific theory; more generally, to outsiders it amounts to simply declaring that "our religion has no problem with evolution" ... which leaves no scientific argument at all.

If they are claiming without evidence that some intelligent being has been tweaking evolution to produce us, that evolution is not undirected, then that doesn’t seem to me to be consonant with science.

harold said: As mrg pointed out above, the question of whether "any" religious belief "whatsoever" is incompatible with "true" science is a different, theological/philosophical question.

It is one of great interest to some people - not to me.

The notion that evolution is simply part of the G-man’s Big Plan doesn’t raise any objections to scientific theory; more generally, to outsiders it amounts to simply declaring that “our religion has no problem with evolution” … which leaves no scientific argument at all.

Actually, I think it does.

The concept of a cause or starting point, in this case “god,” is a posit that has no evidence, reason, nor purpose. It is a needless complication to the theory that provides no explanatory power. There isn’t even an acceptable definition of “god.”

Supernaturality is outside of the realm of science, by definition, and therefore cannot play any part in theory. Any causative agent of evolution, should evidence be found for such, would be considered natural.

RBH said:

Dennis Venema said: Eventually these sessions will be online, so you can parse it for yourself.

Good.

Meyer left the impression that the data was so new that Falk hadn't seen it yet. I can't recall offhand exactly what "evidence" was under discussion at that point.

That's a critical point: What is this purportedly 'new' evidence? Was Meyer riding his 'How did genetic information originate?' horse?

Dennis Venema said:

RBH said:

Dennis Venema said: Eventually these sessions will be online, so you can parse it for yourself.

Good.

Meyer left the impression that the data was so new that Falk hadn't seen it yet. I can't recall offhand exactly what "evidence" was under discussion at that point.

That's a critical point: What is this purportedly 'new' evidence? Was Meyer riding his 'How did genetic information originate?' horse?

I wish I could remember - my best guess (don't hold me to it) was that it was Axe's 2010 paper in the new ID journal BioComplexity. Fortunately it was taped, so we will know for sure in due time.

Arthur Hunt said: In other words, for Meyer, "new" is circa 1969 or so. Its not likely that Falk is equally ignorant or behind the times.

Dennis Venema said: I wish I could remember - my best guess (don't hold me to it) was that it was Axe's 2010 paper in the new ID journal BioComplexity. Fortunately it was taped, so we will know for sure in due time.

Mike Elzinga said: But the more fundamental shortcoming is that their conceptual understanding of science is completely screwed up.

SWT said: Quote mine much?

harold said: So you're going to produce some positive scientific evidence against god. Excellent. Should be interesting.

RBH said:

Dennis Venema said: I wish I could remember - my best guess (don't hold me to it) was that it was Axe's 2010 paper in the new ID journal BioComplexity. Fortunately it was taped, so we will know for sure in due time.

Thanks. I suspected it was one of Axe's protein folding gigs. Axe's recent review paper on it in Bio-Complexity is here (3M PDF). Following the example of Marks and Dembski and others, Axe models evolution as a search problem, thereby being stuck with all the attendant problems of that model. As I've said many times, the search model of biological evolution is a snare and a deception.

harold said: Just Al - So you're going to produce some positive scientific evidence against god. Excellent. Should be interesting.

Otherwise, we're all saying the same thing. Some guys have a religious belief that adds nothing to science but can't be tested one way or the other by science, either. I don't have any religious belief, and you may choose to argue with those guys on a philosophical level, but as far as science is concerned, their beliefs are irrelevant.

Dennis Venema said:

RBH said:

Dennis Venema said: [SNIP] One sincere question, asked of Steve Meyer at one of the DI sessions, was this (I may not recall it exactly word-for-word, but this was the gist): "How can it be, that Darrel Falk, a man of such integrity, can look at your evidence and come to such a different conclusion than you?" That pretty much sums up the meeting in a nutshell for me.

What was Meyer's answer?

Eventually these sessions will be online, so you can parse it for yourself. Meyer left the impression that the data was so new that Falk hadn't seen it yet. I can't recall offhand exactly what "evidence" was under discussion at that point.

Dennis Venema said: Must be the new data that the creation scientists, that they hired at the Biologic Institute a couple of years ago, have come up with.

Sorry, I misattributed the comment.

FL: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have.” SWT: "Quote mine much?"

(borrowing a line from evolutionist H. Allen Orr)

"...considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology"

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have.”

So you’re going to produce some positive scientific evidence against god. Excellent. Should be interesting.

Methinks the burden of proof is on the believers to demonstrate why the null hypothesis ought to be rejected. Thus far, little has been forthcoming.

What have you got? I’d be thrilled to see some positive scientific evidence on behalf of Hanuman or Ganesh, for example.

Science assumes the null set (as does reason.) If there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to consider it. You don’t prove negatives, and in fact, don’t really “prove” anything in science - you simply establish good evidence for its existence. When your evidence consists of nothing, that’s your evidence against it. What else could you use?

Failure to be testable is an actual facet of science - specifically, ruling the concept out of being considered “science” altogether. Empirical tests require something measurable. Defining something as unable to be measured isn’t scientific in any way. It’s philosophy, which has no rules for posits from fantasy versus real world.

I’m fine with theistic evolution being considered a theosophical standpoint, but to argue that science cannot address it is wrong. It is a blatant attempt to take a scientific concept and add religion to it, and it has nothing to do with science. It has no more scientific support than Young-Earth Creationism.

Oops - apologies for the double post.

harold said: I asked for positive scientific evidence against every possible religious interpretation. I did not ask whether or not there is a lack of positive scientific evidence in favor of any given religion.

harold said: I see that you have mistaken me for a religious person, perhaps a Hindu.

Same difference, harold. You’re shifting the burden of proof from the side making the claim (the religious explanation) to the side of the null hypothesis. That’s how it reads to me, anyway.

If all you want to point out is that some religious points of view are not subject to scientific analysis, fine.

Challenging someone to provide positive evidence in support of the null hypothesis is probably not the best way to go about doing so.

I just happen to like them

RBH said: As I've said many times, the search model of biological evolution is a snare and a deception.

harold said: Just Al - So you’re going to produce some positive scientific evidence against god. Excellent. Should be interesting. Science assumes the null set (as does reason.) If there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to consider it. You don’t prove negatives, and in fact, don’t really “prove” anything in science - you simply establish good evidence for its existence. When your evidence consists of nothing, that’s your evidence against it. What else could you use?

Ichthyic --

He's not a faitheist. He said so himself. The discussion was about the null hypothesis as it pertains to scientific matters and I did not see anything that would count as dishonesty in this thread until FL came along.

Sorry if I misunderstood, Harold, but in all honesty it really does read at first blush as though you intended a little special pleading for one case or the other. Apologies for missing the nuances.

I think I see where you're coming from, but in my limited experience there aren't very many faiths that don't make testable claims about the real world. "Souls exist" would qualify, for example.

The MadPanda, FCD

FL said:

FL: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have.” SWT: "Quote mine much?"

Nope. I specifically and parenthetically prefaced the Orr quotation with,

(borrowing a line from evolutionist H. Allen Orr)

No attempt was made to enlist Orr's words as any kind of opposition or refutation to the specific position you stated. Merely borrowed the words of his one-liner, and openly acknowledged I was borrowing them. However, for me, the curious thing is that when I summarized your position using Orr's borrowed words....you were unable to deny it in the slightest. And honestly, there isn't any rational refutation you could have offered anyway. The fact is that your specific TE position, which

"...considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology"

...does in fact rationally (and quite directly) translate into

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have.”

Look at your own statement again. It's a clear re-statement of Orr's line. One merely substitues the word "science" for "Caesar", and you're already there. Inescapable. FL

The MadPanda, FCD said: I think I see where you're coming from, but in my limited experience there aren't very many faiths that don't make testable claims about the real world. "Souls exist" would qualify, for example.

Dale Husband said: Science does not say that God can or cannot have anything, you twit. Science merely says what is known about the material universe.

FL,

You use of Orr's words certainly is a quote mine. You are using Orr's words to make a point other than what he intended; this should be obvious to anyone who actually read Orr's review of Rocks of Ages.

I'm sorry if it bothers you that theology has a tool available (science) for which science has no counterpart.

harold said: harold said: It is crystal clear what I said here. I asked for positive scientific evidence against every possible religious interpretation. I did not ask whether or not there is a lack of positive scientific evidence in favor of any given religion.

"Theistic evolution" almost always describes a view that does NOT try to add anything supernatural to science.

There is no need to ride to the defense of atheism here. No-one is arguing against atheism or in favor of religion.

I am merely making the clear point that some people have religious views that are not scientifically testable. Such people may therefore accept science, while retaining their views.

Dennis Venema said: ...Axe's 2010 paper in the new ID journal BioComplexity.

Two theistic evolutionists have posted in this thread.

Both indicated that there was no role for theological considerations in science.

Paul Burnett said: See http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-id-journal-bio-complexity.html for a discussion of this bogus "journal." And just for giggles, peruse http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main.

Frankly, I'm glad this journal has launched. I know a lot of people have been waiting a long time to see what (if anything) the ID movement had to offer besides yet another populist anti-evolution crusade. In particular, since the launch of Biologic, I've been hoping they would ... well... do something. Something other than churn out books, debate atheists, and make spectacles of themselves. So here we go. I see BIO-Complexity as a positive response to the challenge of put up or shut up, and that's good. I hope it will go beyond just anti-evolution rhetoric ... err, research, but I guess that remains to be seen.

SWT said: Such a TE considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology. FWIW, this is my position.

mrg said: As Harry Truman liked to put it: "I don't give them hell. I tell them the truth and they think it's hell."

Aagcobb said: I have no problem with that. Its dangerous to promote the meme that evolutionary theory is inherently atheistic-that's the enemy's argument.

Paul Burnett said: As Stephen Colbert likes to put it: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Dornier Pfeil said: It should at least be fair to say that it is inherently NONtheistic, shouldn't it?

Dornier Pfeil said: Should Science be considerate of religion?

I've always understood "theistic evolution" to be the position that the scientific understanding of evolution is scientifically sufficient and always will be, BUT that there's this supernatural entity who, well, doesn't actually DO anything but we'll somehow associate it with evolution even though there's no possible discernable association, because, well, because otherwise we'd suffer the unacceptable omission of the irrelevant.

And I suppose that so long as the inability to set aside supernatural irrelevancies doesn't actively interfere with the pursuit of real science (including discouraging potentially competent scientists saddled with supernatural irrelevance syndrome from going into science, etc.), then it's all kind of silly and harmless.

After all, such people are far more than theistic evolutionists. They are theistic car drivers, theistic house builders, theistic cooks and firemen and what all. And in each of these areas, the theism is both uttlerly irrelevant and useless, and equally incapable of being decoupled from what it doesn't relate to. Religion is like that.

harold said: Oops - apologies for the double post.

RBH said: Following the example of Marks and Dembski and others, Axe models evolution as a search problem, thereby being stuck with all the attendant problems of that model. As I've said many times, the search model of biological evolution is a snare and a deception.

SWT said: Two theistic evolutionists have posted in this thread. Both indicated that there was no role for theological considerations in science.

Tom English said: I call it the Pee Wee Herman "I meant to do that" model of intelligent design.

Theistic anything and everything: theistic garbage collection, theistic carmaking, theistic cake decoration...

(Theistic.hat)

See, it goes like this: God is omnipresent, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, right? So...

God knows of and is personally present in all instants throughout time and space. (He also stands outside time and space; manifestly, He must do, since He created them. But that to one side.)

Therefore, God controls all events, I say, (channels Foghorn Leghorn) all events, boy. (Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of peas.)

Hence, the interaction of every particle and every quantum state in the Universe, throughout all of time whatsoever, is controlled by God.

God mostly chooses to be constrained by rules of His own. We can speculate as to why, but that isn't to the point here. He also does not control the operation of human free will, within the constraints of the other rules He follows, again for reasons that we can speculate about, but which are not to the point here.

What is the point is that events that we can only see as random - including mutation, imperfect genetic expression, whatever - are actually acts of God. Nevertheless, since we cannot know the Will of God, we must treat these as random for the purposes of studying them.

Hence, it is possible, at one and the same time, and without contradiction, to believe that God exists, has the characteristics given above, and is actually in control of evolution, but also to believe that evolution must be treated by humans practising science as a fully natural process, conforming to natural law, consisting of random events (within a given range) selected by the natural environment.

Theologically, this is completely sound. The alternative is to believe that God was not prescient enough in his control of "randomness" to produce a fully natural result, and had to use supernatural means, at one time, or from time to time, to "correct" Himself. No, actually worse. It is to deny that God is omniscient and omnipresent. At any rate, to say that is to limit and impute fault to God, which is a blasphemy and a heresy.

(/Theistic.hat)

Now, as to the theistic wearing of polyester...

Just Al said:

SWT said: Two theistic evolutionists have posted in this thread. Both indicated that there was no role for theological considerations in science.

Makes you wonder, then, how theistic evolution differs from evolution, doesn't it? Is there theistic geology, theistic quantum entanglement, theistic hydrodynamics? Wouldn't they all have to exist under the basic premise of theism? Let's be really, really blunt: what is the word "theistic" adding to the idea? Why is it there? I do not espouse "caucasian gravity" or "male photoelectric effect" for a specific reason. Guess what it is?

Wow, the Disco Tutes could have been pals with the BioLogos but they decided to give them the ol' hucksterooni instead. Just kidding. :D They can still be pals because they are all gullible schmucks anyway. :P

Dale Husband said:

Just Al said:

SWT said: Two theistic evolutionists have posted in this thread. Both indicated that there was no role for theological considerations in science.

Makes you wonder, then, how theistic evolution differs from evolution, doesn't it? Is there theistic geology, theistic quantum entanglement, theistic hydrodynamics? Wouldn't they all have to exist under the basic premise of theism? Let's be really, really blunt: what is the word "theistic" adding to the idea? Why is it there? ...

It's just a way of debunking the often repeated slander by Creationists that to accept evolution is to become atheist. ...

Just Al said: Is there theistic geology...?

SWT said: This self-description is useful when I'm trying to educate my fellow believers about what modern evolutionary theory is, what claims it does not make, the astounding amount of empirical evidence consistent with the theory, what science is about, and the power of methodological naturalism. At least in my case, "theistic evolution" is no different from "evolution" from the standpoint of scientific content.

One form of TE posits that the evolutionary process is inherently the will of the Almighty – no intervention or tweaking is required.

RBH -

Thanks for the link to Steve Matheson's excellent prescient critique of Falk's misguided initiative with the Dishonesty Institute (But not only Falk should be taken to task but Randy Isaac of ASA too. Am surprised that ASA member Rich Blinne hasn't chimed in yet here. I would hope Blinne would support my critique of Isaac's invovlement in that rather absurd event.). However, here Falk deserves the lion's share of the blame since he thought that he and BioLogos could meet on equal terms with the Dishonesty Institute. Both he and Karl Giberson have embraced with ample foolishness the notion that there are some in the DI with whom they could work with as fellow "Brothers in Christ" (BTW this was the very mea culpa defense that Falk had offered to me, prior to his decision to ban me from posting at the BioLogos online forum simply because I wasn't sufficiently "respectful" to the hardcore "Christian" creationists - including Intelligent Design proponents - posting there.). I would hope, in light of the DI's latest "bait and switch" episode, that both Falk and Giberson would come to their senses with regards to the DI, but nothing in their past history would suggest otherwise to me.

SWT said:

Dale Husband said:

Just Al said:

SWT said: Two theistic evolutionists have posted in this thread. Both indicated that there was no role for theological considerations in science.

Makes you wonder, then, how theistic evolution differs from evolution, doesn't it? Is there theistic geology, theistic quantum entanglement, theistic hydrodynamics? Wouldn't they all have to exist under the basic premise of theism? Let's be really, really blunt: what is the word "theistic" adding to the idea? Why is it there? ...

It's just a way of debunking the often repeated slander by Creationists that to accept evolution is to become atheist. ...

Dale Husband is correct, at least in my case. The term "theistic evolution" is unfortunate, and should probably be retired. "Theistic evolutionist" is an accurate description of a person (a theist who accepts modern evolutionary theory). I'm a theistic evolutionist because I'm a Christian who accepts modern evolutionary theory as the best available scientific explanation of the available data. This self-description is useful when I'm trying to educate my fellow believers about what modern evolutionary theory is, what claims it does not make, the astounding amount of empirical evidence consistent with the theory, what science is about, and the power of methodological naturalism. At least in my case, "theistic evolution" is no different from "evolution" from the standpoint of scientific content. We don't hear about "theistic thermodynamics" or "theistic bricklaying" because (as far as I know) nobody is yet claiming that mainstream thermodynamics or bricklaying are inimical to theistic belief in general.

Theistic evolutionists are beset by Morton's demon but they've managed to corral the beast into a carefully circumscribed playpen. The essential (tacit) statement of theistic evolutionism is "I am irrational, but not about that.

This Touchstone, “The Measure of Design” interview brings up some of the same issues from the perspective of the DI goons.

Along with all their standard misconceptions and misrepresentations of science, there is a lot of bottled-up hostility in this conversation.

As nauseating as they are, some of these conversations among fundamentalists, about how evil everybody else is, can give some insight into their character and their motives.
These guys are sitting around in seething jealousy, grousing among themselves about how unappreciated they are.

Society has been so unfair to them; and nobody will debate them any longer. So they have to go out and set up meetings with respected scientists from which they can draw some “respectability” by “defeating them” in ambush debates.

When dealing with creationists, one can be sure that they will ignore or misrepresent what others say, refuse to answer pertinent questions and instead provide endless claims that they "do not have to" answer, insist on mis-defining terms, and repeat the same flawed arguments over and over again.

They also use verbosity as a weapon, ramming up a large number long posts in a short period of time.

They do these things because their preconceived biases rob them of honesty and logic, and because their egos are too fragile to allow them to concede an error.

And they are not the only one.

Mike Elzinga said: This Touchstone, “The Measure of Design” interview brings up some of the same issues from the perspective of the DI goons. Along with all their standard misconceptions and misrepresentations of science, there is a lot of bottled-up hostility in this conversation. As nauseating as they are, some of these conversations among fundamentalists, about how evil everybody else is, can give some insight into their character and their motives. These guys are sitting around in seething jealousy, grousing among themselves about how unappreciated they are. Society has been so unfair to them; and nobody will debate them any longer. So they have to go out and set up meetings with respected scientists from which they can draw some “respectability” by “defeating them” in ambush debates.

Just Al said: Someone's desire to hold a specific worldview does not add legitimacy. From a critical thinking standpoint, this is an important lesson, which holds for things like UFOs and alt-med and psychic powers and so on.

Dennis Venema | October 30, 2010 8:50 AM | Reply | Edit RBH, I don’t think that any of this was particularly surprising to Darrel or to BioLogos. Disappointing, yes. Unexpected, no. Darrel is an extremely gracious person, but he is anything but naive. Steve Matheson’s critique is also worth hearing, and I agree with Steve on almost all of it. I think it’s pretty clear that BioLogos co-sponsoring this meeting was not an endorsement of the other groups or some sort of intellectual capitulation in the name of Christian unity. It was an opportunity to have a Christian view that accepts mainstream biology at the table in front of thoughtful Christians, many of whom are leaders in their congregations.

harold | October 30, 2010 2:33 PM | Reply | Edit harold said: So you’re going to produce some positive scientific evidence against god. Excellent. Should be interesting. It is crystal clear what I said here. I asked for positive scientific evidence against every possible religious interpretation. I did not ask whether or not there is a lack of positive scientific evidence in favor of any given religion.

Dale Husband said: It's just a way of debunking the often repeated slander by Creationists that to accept evolution is to become atheist.

harold said: They do these things because their preconceived biases rob them of honesty and logic, and because their egos are too fragile to allow them to concede an error. And they are not the only one.

truthspeaker said:

Dennis Venema | October 30, 2010 8:50 AM | Reply | Edit RBH, I don’t think that any of this was particularly surprising to Darrel or to BioLogos. Disappointing, yes. Unexpected, no. Darrel is an extremely gracious person, but he is anything but naive. Steve Matheson’s critique is also worth hearing, and I agree with Steve on almost all of it. I think it’s pretty clear that BioLogos co-sponsoring this meeting was not an endorsement of the other groups or some sort of intellectual capitulation in the name of Christian unity. It was an opportunity to have a Christian view that accepts mainstream biology at the table in front of thoughtful Christians, many of whom are leaders in their congregations.

If they thought the people in the audience were "thoughtful" Christians, then that shows a lot of naivete right there.

But it’s the same question, just phrased two different ways. The evidence against every possible religious interpretation is the lack of evidence for all possible religious interpretations.

I am always puzzled when people express surprise, even indignation, when I tell them I have learned to avoid disputes over religion. By all the evidence, the rationale for doing so seems completely obvious.

Just Al said:

SWT said: This self-description is useful when I'm trying to educate my fellow believers about what modern evolutionary theory is, what claims it does not make, the astounding amount of empirical evidence consistent with the theory, what science is about, and the power of methodological naturalism. At least in my case, "theistic evolution" is no different from "evolution" from the standpoint of scientific content.

The problem I have with it is that it compounds the issues, rather than addressing them. By having a scientific sounding name and being used in specific circumstances, it is then considered to be a scientific standpoint, an alternative to Natural Selection. This is misleading at best, abject denial at worst.

tomh -

Sorry, typo, that should have been "only ones".

Anyway, this same old point comes up time and time again - I say some people claim to be religious but don't actively deny science, and someone else says (I hope this is a fair paraphrase) that any expression of a religious belief is in some way a denial of science.

I suppose another question I could ask would be "is there a specific potential future observable or experimental result in science that someone holding Kenneth Miller's religion would predict a different result from, than someone not holding Kenneth Miller's religion, assuming full knowledge of theory and prior results on both parts?". Note that I would count a less parsimonious claim as a different claim. If there is, we can wait, and disprove Miller's religion that way. If not, Miller's religion is unnecessary philosophical baggage, perhaps, but does not interfere with purely scientific tasks.

But I guess I also feel that this type of discussion, while initially mildly interesting, soon begins to tire me out.

harold said: I see a fairly important difference.

I've often wondered whether devout religious faith may constrain to some degree the career options those holding such faiths may find palatable. I wonder if there might be some hypotheses Kenneth Miller simply would never come up with, because of either a religious preconcepton or a fear of potential religious conflict. Doesn't even need to be conscious.

The conclusion we seem to be talking around is that at best religion won't harm the scientific enterprise considered broadly, and religion approaches this "best" to the extent that it is weak, abstract, and not an important part of one's life. Religion is to science as insanity is to intelligence - it might not be harmful, usually, we hope, especially if there's not too much of it and it's intermittent anyway.

harold | October 31, 2010 3:22 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker - But it’s the same question, just phrased two different ways. The evidence against every possible religious interpretation is the lack of evidence for all possible religious interpretations. But there really is a logical difference between complete lack of evidence for a proposition, and positive evidence against a position. It only matters because of this - There are two different groups of people under discussion here. ID/creationists, like Dembski, Behe, FL, Ibelieveingod, etc. And “theistic evolutionists” like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. The former are 1) denying strong, tested science and 2) have a history of advocating violation of the US constitution by having sectarian dogma taught as science in publicly funded schools. The latter are not doing either of those things. I can see no logical reason for conflating the likes of Kenneth Miller with the likes of William Dembski. One group directly denies science and scorns the human rights of others, the other group doesn’t. I perceive an obvious valid distinction between the groups. I personally don’t agree with the religion of, say, Kenneth Miller, obviously, or else I’d convert to it. But his religious beliefs neither interfere with my rights, nor contradict the theory of evolution. To put it another way, the ONLY evidence against Kenneth Miller’s religion that I have is the lack of evidence in favor of it. Now, obviously, implicitly, that’s enough, because I don’t follow his religion, but it’s all I’ve got. On the other hand, I have abundant positive evidence against creationists’ religion. They say the earth is 6000 years old, but the earth is several billion years old. They say that there was a global flood in the relatively recent past, but there was not. They say that life cannot evolve in the way explained by the theory of evolution, but life does evolve in the way explained by the theory of evolution. I see a fairly important difference.

Here’s the thing: I can’t teach people who won’t listen. More of my fellow theists will listen to me when it’s clear from the start that I’m not going to use evolutionary theory to get them to abandon Christianity or the Presbyterian Church. The description “theistic evolutionist” opens the door so that I can teach some basic science and dispel some of the “inaccuracies” promoted by creationists.

Flint said: I've often wondered whether devout religious faith may constrain to some degree the career options those holding such faiths may find palatable. I wonder if there might be some hypotheses Kenneth Miller simply would never come up with, because of either a religious preconcepton or a fear of potential religious conflict. Doesn't even need to be conscious. The conclusion we seem to be talking around is that at best religion won't harm the scientific enterprise considered broadly, and religion approaches this "best" to the extent that it is weak, abstract, and not an important part of one's life. Religion is to science as insanity is to intelligence - it might not be harmful, usually, we hope, especially if there's not too much of it and it's intermittent anyway.

Dennis Venema replied to comment from truthspeaker | October 31, 2010 2:53 PM Many of the folks I met at the conference were indeed thoughtful about these issues. Are you saying that you can, from afar, determine the type of folks who were in attendance? Interesting.

The conference was organized ostensibly in order that Christians, particularly Christians who are scientists, could explore common ground. It included a range of people as speakers, Old Earth Creationists all, and featured such luminaries as Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. a leading old earth creationism ministry.

truthspeaker said:

The conference was organized ostensibly in order that Christians, particularly Christians who are scientists, could explore common ground. It included a range of people as speakers, Old Earth Creationists all, and featured such luminaries as Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. a leading old earth creationism ministry.

yes, I think it is possible to predict what kind of people would have been in attendance.

truthspeaker said: I understand what you're doing and why you feel the need to do it. But don't you realize that you wouldn't even have this problem if we didn't have centuries of cultural baggage that suggest that having the correct faith is more important than thinking critically? Wouldn't it be better for future generations if that idea were no longer prevelant?

RBH said: I think the whole enterprise was doomed from the start, Because the fundamental differences among the speakers (and likely the attendees) are mainly theological rather than scientific, there's no principled way for them to resolve their differences. So the effort to bring them together is futile; either suppression of differences or schism is inevitable.

Mike Elzinga said: The fact that we constantly have these issues in our society is because fundamentalists take it upon themselves to meddle in the affairs of others and snipe at any objective knowledge that threatens their desire to rule.

tomh said: So-called moderates, those who keep their religion private and out of the public sphere, they are the outliers.

Mike Elzinga replied to comment from truthspeaker | October 31, 2010 4:55 PM But we are stuck with the world we live in right now. I understand SWT’s perspective; how do we get to a rational society from where we are unless he can do what he does in his church?

RBH said: Bear in mind that's my description, not necessarily the self-description those folks would offer. And I think Venema's reference included the attendees as well as the speakers and we have no information on the beliefs of the audience/attendees.

RBH said: I think the whole enterprise was doomed from the start, Because the fundamental differences among the speakers (and likely the attendees) are mainly theological rather than scientific, there's no principled way for them to resolve their differences. So the effort to bring them together is futile; either suppression of differences or schism is inevitable.

truthspeaker said: We are, and I'm not sure we can. But I hope SWT and others like him think about the harm they have had to undo before they raise their children with the idea that a god exists, taking that proposition on faith is a good thing, and the Christian tradition is a good tradition to belong to.

There is all sorts of knowledge that isn't scientific. One example is mathematical knowledge. Another is historical knowledge.

I'm not a believer in "theistic evolution", and maybe they can speak for themselves better, but I think they would say that knowledge of God's role in evolution is not scientific knowledge. It is known in some other way, if it is known.

Likewise, there are no experiments that prove the existence of Julius Caesar, no physical laws that prove he must necessarily have existed and done the things he did. The evidence on which we base our belief in Julius Caesar and the evidence on which we disbelieve in King Arthur are of the same kind; the difference is one of degree.

If you could rewind history, would it necessarily have played out the same way? Would there have been Julius Caesar at all? Would there have been a guy with his DNA and personality who grew up a goat herder? Would there have been some other guy not named Julius Caesar but who did the kinds of things that Caesar did? These are interesting questions but they are not answered by science.

And I don't think these questions would be dismissed out of hand by most of the posters here, but if the questions involve God then they are much more likely to be.

In order to believe that God has something to do with evolution you don't have to resort to the poofing and tweaking of the intelligent design movement. You just have to believe that God knew in advance, and desired, that something like us would evolve. Likewise it is possible to believe that God knows in advance the sequence of heads and tails you are going to get every time you throw a coin, but that doesn't imply God has to MAKE it happen, or that God has the sort of knowledge that a scientist would have to have in order to know that.

At any rate I'm not trying to convince anyone to be a theistic evolutionist, I'm just trying to see things their way and make a case for it.

Dennis Venema said:

truthspeaker said:

Dennis Venema | October 30, 2010 8:50 AM | Reply | Edit RBH, I don’t think that any of this was particularly surprising to Darrel or to BioLogos. Disappointing, yes. Unexpected, no. Darrel is an extremely gracious person, but he is anything but naive. Steve Matheson’s critique is also worth hearing, and I agree with Steve on almost all of it. I think it’s pretty clear that BioLogos co-sponsoring this meeting was not an endorsement of the other groups or some sort of intellectual capitulation in the name of Christian unity. It was an opportunity to have a Christian view that accepts mainstream biology at the table in front of thoughtful Christians, many of whom are leaders in their congregations.

If they thought the people in the audience were "thoughtful" Christians, then that shows a lot of naivete right there.

Many of the folks I met at the conference were indeed thoughtful about these issues. Are you saying that you can, from afar, determine the type of folks who were in attendance? Interesting.

Dennis Venema said: Personally, I had no expectation that the DI and BioLogos would resolve differences at this meeting. The point was to be able to present mainstream biology to the audience and discuss how Christians need not be afraid of it.

truthspeaker said: I don't. Believing something with no supporting evidence is just as silly as believing something that contradicts known evidence. That people like Miller are less harmful to society in the short term has no relevance on the point we were discussing, which is that, for practical purposes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Gabriel Hanna said: ...there are no experiments that prove the existence of Julius Caesar, no physical laws that prove he must necessarily have existed and done the things he did.

“Were you there?” - Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, other creationists…

Caesar's in the Bible, no problems from them. :) (At least Augustus and Tiberius are.)

But I'm not sure what you are trying to say, really.

FL said: The fact is that your specific TE position, which

"...considers scientific results when thinking through theology, but does not ask science to consider theology"

...does in fact rationally (and quite directly) translate into

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that Caesar says he can have.”

Look at your own statement again. It's a clear re-statement of Orr's line. One merely substitues the word "science" for "Caesar", and you're already there. Inescapable. FL

Dale Husband said: So if I have no evidence that you are a human native to this planet, may I suggest that you may be an alien from another world?

And that is exactly why your position of philosophical absolutism is indeed useless, and thus why New Atheism is full of crap,

It is arrogance for you to jam that attitude down others' throats.

And when are you atheist fanatics going to actually DISPROVE theism, if you can?

SWT said: Here's the thing: I can't teach people who won't listen. More of my fellow theists will listen to me when it's clear from the start that I'm not going to use evolutionary theory to get them to abandon Christianity or the Presbyterian Church. The description "theistic evolutionist" opens the door so that I can teach some basic science and dispel some of the "inaccuracies" promoted by creationists.

In an ideal world, the term "theistic evolutionist" would go away. However, as long as the opponents of evolution can get a sizable portion of the populace to believe that accepting the validity of evolution will require them to give up all religious belief, TE or some similar term will continue to be useful. I'm sorry if that's not a pure enough approach for you, but I'm the one who's tried to teach the basics of evolution in a church setting and I need all the help I can get.

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Al said: Someone's desire to hold a specific worldview does not add legitimacy. From a critical thinking standpoint, this is an important lesson, which holds for things like UFOs and alt-med and psychic powers and so on.

Is it necessarily a desire to hold certain specific worldviews rather than a matter of tradition or expediency that comes from just going about living? People come from all kinds of cultures and religious backgrounds. Much of what is in those cultures and religious traditions forms some kind of template for getting on about the business of living and relating to others. From a practical perspective, it is often a bit hard just to toss all that out on the basis of incomplete new knowledge about the world science has discovered. I suspect most of us hold incommensurables in our minds simply because we don’t feel we have enough knowledge to resolve them. There is a kind of “latency period” in which we don’t take a definite stand or make the decision to abandon certain ideas that have been a part of our culture and upbringing.

Just Al said: My point is more that the general public doesn't understand something that most scientists have to face at all times: if you get the results you wanted, you need to be especially suspicious. Fooling ourselves is far too easy, and can take place in subtle ways.

tomh said: You actually think there is philosophical position called New Atheism? New Atheism is just a catch-all term used by theists, accomodationists, whoever, for any atheist they don't like.

Hyperbolize much?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/06/in-defense-of-m.html#comment-219719 truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 2:53 PM It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise – and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it – promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

tomh said: You actually think there is philosophical position called New Atheism? New Atheism is just a catch-all term used by theists, accomodationists, whoever, for any atheist they don't like.

Hyperbolize much?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/06/in-defense-of-m.html#comment-219719 truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 2:53 PM It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise – and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it – promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

I've read most of the comments now (not all yet) and am curious to find out how the "debate", "showdown", ended up without Falk.

Did Randy Isaac still participate?

John Kwok said: I agree with RBH. The enterprise was doomed from the start since neither BioLogos nor ASA should have expected that it would be possible to have any credible dialogue with the Dishonesty Institute. IMHO both Darrel Falk and Randy Isaac were duped:

Dennis Venema said: Personally, I had no expectation that the DI and BioLogos would resolve differences at this meeting. The point was to be able to present mainstream biology to the audience and discuss how Christians need not be afraid of it.

The conference would have been a success if someone like Steve Matheson or Ken Miller appeared to offer a ringing denunciation of the Dishonesty Institute (or have Ken declare that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should discard them immediately). We don't have "Christian" conferences on physics or chemistry or astrophysics. Why should evolutionary biology be held to a different standard? It shouldn't. Christians interested in science should heed the words of Ken Miller, Keith Miller and Steve Matheson, not those who seek some kind of "acoomodationism" with the Dishonesty Institute and its disreputable stable of mendacious intellectual pornographers.

Lynn Wilhelm said: I've read most of the comments now (not all yet) and am curious to find out how the "debate", "showdown", ended up without Falk. Did Randy Isaac still participate?

I would like to close out my participation in this discussion by noting my areas of common ground with everyone involved (except FL).

I am what is known as a "skeptic". I generally don't accept any (meaningful) existence for supernatural events or entities, and try not to favor one arbitrary story over another for purely cultural reasons. This tendency is largely responsible for the fact that I don't follow the particular religious tradition I was raised in, even though it wasn't very offensive and I could find very "liberal" denominations that are closely related.

(I personally view that idea that humanity would be "better off without religion" as both an entirely subjective opinion - it depends on what you mean by "better" - and an untestable conjecture - we have no controlled experiment and have no idea what humanity without religion would be like. I do very strongly agree that humanity would be better off without unjustified violence, fraud, delusions, authoritarianism, unjustified discrimination, etc - but that is a separate issue, as I am against those things regardless of stated motivation.)

On the other hand, I very strongly support the human right to believe and worship as one sees fit, as long as one does not interfere with the human rights of others. There are innumerable examples of repression and oppression of people for being religious, but in the "wrong way", and I feel that we need to guard against that. We don't do a very good job.

It is clear that a lot of important science has been done and continues to be done by people who happen to have a religious belief. It is also clear that scientists have suffered repression for having the wrong religious belief in a number of settings. I am very sensitive to the issue of potentially discrimination against a scientist, on any level from outright imprisonment, denial of work, etc, to things as subtle as unfairly evaluating submissions to journals in a biased way.

I also freely admit that my own thinking is very strongly influenced by cultural biases, as is everyone's. I view science and math, and perhaps formal logic, as things that every reasonable and sufficiently informed person can come to close agreement on, as they are grounded in assumptions that seem to be very universal. I don't view them as necessarily the only things anyone should accept, but more as the things that reasonable people shouldn't deny.

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: I agree with RBH. The enterprise was doomed from the start since neither BioLogos nor ASA should have expected that it would be possible to have any credible dialogue with the Dishonesty Institute. IMHO both Darrel Falk and Randy Isaac were duped:

Dennis Venema said: Personally, I had no expectation that the DI and BioLogos would resolve differences at this meeting. The point was to be able to present mainstream biology to the audience and discuss how Christians need not be afraid of it.

The conference would have been a success if someone like Steve Matheson or Ken Miller appeared to offer a ringing denunciation of the Dishonesty Institute (or have Ken declare that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should discard them immediately). We don't have "Christian" conferences on physics or chemistry or astrophysics. Why should evolutionary biology be held to a different standard? It shouldn't. Christians interested in science should heed the words of Ken Miller, Keith Miller and Steve Matheson, not those who seek some kind of "acoomodationism" with the Dishonesty Institute and its disreputable stable of mendacious intellectual pornographers.

This conference was more a success than Steve's talk at Biola and certainly more than the propaganda-fest at SMU. Only one session was canceled. The rest of the conference went forward. So, instead of debating the red herring of the origin of life, Randy discussed the flaws in Stephen Meyer's understanding of the concept of information and without the DI after-spin. Before he became our Executive Director Randy ran IBM's TJ Watson laboratory. Dennis debated Doug Axe and as a Christian biologist presented the evidence for the Darwinian mechanism. Deborah Haarsma presented on engaging congregations on Creation Care and sustainability. Darell gave an excellent biology lesson in genetics. You have to understand something, because of the DI evangelicals never ever see the truth. This time, however, the truth came out in front of an evangelical audience -- not only the scientific evidence but also the mendacious tactics of the Discovery Institute. I find it encouraging from Dennis' report that some of it might have gotten through. If we hadn't been as you say duped then the contrast between ours and their behavior would not have been so evident. Also note that both Steve and I were warning to the participants about this prior to the meeting so this was not an unexpected outcome, just an unwanted one. Why do you think Darell repeatedly asked for assurances up to the meeting and when they reneged he cancelled? That doesn't sound to me like he really trusted them.

Rich Blinne said: This conference was more a success than Steve's talk at Biola and certainly more than the propaganda-fest at SMU. Only one session was canceled. The rest of the conference went forward. So, instead of debating the red herring of the origin of life, Randy discussed the flaws in Stephen Meyer's understanding of the concept of information and without the DI after-spin. Before he became our Executive Director Randy ran IBM's TJ Watson laboratory. Dennis debated Doug Axe and as a Christian biologist presented the evidence for the Darwinian mechanism. Deborah Haarsma presented on engaging congregations on Creation Care and sustainability. Darell gave an excellent biology lesson in genetics. You have to understand something, because of the DI evangelicals never ever see the truth. This time, however, the truth came out in front of an evangelical audience -- not only the scientific evidence but also the mendacious tactics of the Discovery Institute. I find it encouraging from Dennis' report that some of it might have gotten through. If we hadn't been as you say duped then the contrast between ours and their behavior would not have been so evident. Also note that both Steve and I were warning to the participants about this prior to the meeting so this was not an unexpected outcome, just an unwanted one. Why do you think Darell repeatedly asked for assurances up to the meeting and when they reneged he cancelled? That doesn't sound to me like he really trusted them.

John Kwok said: What would have been more useful IMHO was to have had an Evangelical Christian audience hear stinging condemnations from Steve Matheson and Keith Miller

Dennis Venema said:

John Kwok said: What would have been more useful IMHO was to have had an Evangelical Christian audience hear stinging condemnations from Steve Matheson and Keith Miller

John, I disagree. If we had gone that route we would have lost the audience and played into the hands of the DI. The win here is that an audience greatly predisposed to ID and/or RTB-style OEC saw the truth, and saw the truth presented in a manner that did not "turn them off" from the outset. A strident tone would have done so. My two cents.

I think my strategy would work if and only if the participant(s) didn't include Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. By participating in that forum I fear you, Darrel and Randy gave the Dishonesty Institute needless credibility in the eyes of that Evangelical Christian audience. As it is, the DI is currently "spinning" this event as a "win" for its side in its online samizdat newsleter Nota Bene.

John Kwok said: I think my strategy would work if and only if the participant(s) didn't include Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. By participating in that forum I fear you, Darrel and Randy gave the Dishonesty Institute needless credibility in the eyes of that Evangelical Christian audience. As it is, the DI is currently "spinning" this event as a "win" for its side in its online samizdat newsleter Nota Bene.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | October 31, 2010 10:32 PM So if I have no evidence that you are a human native to this planet, may I suggest that you may be an alien from another world?

Dennis Venema said: Once the video is out y'all will be able to evaluate how it went. I felt reasonably good about it afterwards. The point was to show the non-specialist, evangelical audience that a Christian biologist had thoroughly examined the DI "evidence" and was not convinced by it.

truthspeaker said:

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | October 31, 2010 10:32 PM So if I have no evidence that you are a human native to this planet, may I suggest that you may be an alien from another world?

But you do have evidence that I am a human native to this planet - I'm posting on the internet, and doing it in English. This isn't conclusive evidence - I could be an alien who came to earth and learned English, or I could be a really well-written web bot that responds to conversations. But there is definitely evidence suggesting that I am a human to this planet. That's already more evidence than theists have for the existence of gods.

John Kwok said: I still stand behind what I said (see below). What would have been more useful IMHO was to have had an Evangelical Christian audience hear stinging condemnations from Steve Matheson and Keith Miller - Evangelical Christians who are also reputable scientists - than having BioLogos and ASA allow themselves to become the intellectual prostitutes of the Dishonesty Institute. In this case the DI "won" by having equal footing with both organizations.

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: I still stand behind what I said (see below). What would have been more useful IMHO was to have had an Evangelical Christian audience hear stinging condemnations from Steve Matheson and Keith Miller - Evangelical Christians who are also reputable scientists - than having BioLogos and ASA allow themselves to become the intellectual prostitutes of the Dishonesty Institute. In this case the DI "won" by having equal footing with both organizations.

LOL. We have nowhere close to equal footing within the evangelical community and that rather than the general public was the audience of this conference. In other words, we have roughly the same standing in the evangelical community that ID has in the scientific community. It's even worse than that, at least the scientific community knows ID exists. When Francis Collins wrote the Language of God we did have some small but significant standing but the recent change in the political landscape has changed that so our influence is near zero. That being said the political pendulum goes back and forth and when the current political madness has abated we can show that while we were powerless we acted like adults. Jeremiads might feel good at the time but persistent, gentle persuasion can be more successful over the long run. This is not to say what Steve is doing is not helpful. It is, but it takes both kinds of persuasion. This is particularly the case given the paranoia that ID has fostered. We need to show by example to the evangelical community we are not a threat to the evangelical layperson. I believe the conference did that.

Dennis Venema said:

John Kwok said: I think my strategy would work if and only if the participant(s) didn't include Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. By participating in that forum I fear you, Darrel and Randy gave the Dishonesty Institute needless credibility in the eyes of that Evangelical Christian audience. As it is, the DI is currently "spinning" this event as a "win" for its side in its online samizdat newsleter Nota Bene.

John, you have to realize that this audience already feels that the DI and RTB are the best thing since sliced bread. I doubt anything Biologos did could raise the credibility of the DI with that audience. On the other hand, by being present at the conference and acting in a Christian manner, and simultaneously presenting hard data and vigorously contesting the DI / RTB approaches, there is a very high probability that Biologos will, for some in the audience, lower the credibility of the antievolutionary groups. I know from my own interactions with attendees that this was in fact the case. YMMV.

John, this event was emphatically NOT organized by the DI. It was organized by an independent organization that has no ties to any of the groups invited to present there. You might want to check your facts before making sweeping claims.

I appreciate Steve's viewpoint, and I thought he and Arthur did a fine job at Biola. I don't think there needs to be a one-size-fits-all approach here. I'm glad you appreciated their efforts as well. I hope you won't take offense, but you weren't exactly the target audience for this recent event.

Best,

Dennis

John Kwok said: That may be Dennis, but, as I just noted in my reply to Rich Blinne, I think Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson were able to accomplish a lot more at Biola.

I mentioned some “professorial” activities that ended up making this trip quite rewarding. One of these was something I volunteered to do once I accepted Biola’s invitation to be on the panel of critics. I knew almost nothing about Biola, and I decided that one thing that would take some of the edge off of this experience would be to offer to give a seminar or lecture to the Biola scientific community. I decided that a lecture would be a better way to interact with students and Biola faculty outside of the adversarial, “us vs. them” atmosphere of the Meyer event. To my great and good fortune, the head of the Apologetics Program (that was organizing the event) forwarded my offer to the science faculty, and I was able to give a lecture to a large and diverse class. The lecture itself was a challenge, and I am not sure how well I pulled it off – the class was a collection of upper-level students who had a lot of biology course background, and younger science majors who had yet to take many (if any) biology classes. I chose to talk about some of the behind-the-scenes developments in plant biology that contributed to the unfolding of the small RNA story. This allowed me to talk about plant biotechnology (something that might interest a first-year student) and small RNAs. Needless to say, the class reacted very well to my lecture, and I got several excellent and insightful questions throughout the talk. The following interactions I had with my two faculty hosts for the afternoon were also splendid. I was impressed, and I must ashamedly admit pleasantly surprised, by the students and my two hosts. I can only hope that this effort on my behalf allowed the students and their professors to see a “critic” in a different and more complimentary light.

Jim Kidder's remarks.

RBH -

The comments section to Jim Kidder's remarks contain something cogent that everyone, including me, seems to have overlooked. The commenter, understandably, notes that the DI does not present itself as a Christian organization.

But in fact, now the Discovery Institute is, it seems, openly in the business of calling itself Christian and telling other Christians that they are bad if honestly they accept the scientific evidence for evolution, rather than engaging in dishonest denial in the name of ideological purity. (Yes I am aware that there are a few very disturbed Jewish individuals associated with the DI, before someone brings that up.)

So the role reversal is complete.

Not long ago, not only was "intelligent design" claimed to be non-sectarian, that claim was the whole point of its existence. The whole point was to disguise creationism as "not religious" so that sectarian denial of evolution could be snuck into public school science classes in a more secure and court-proof way.

In fact, there are still occasional out-of-date trolls, fundamentalist Christians themselves, who show up to beller that "ID isn't religious" at random intervals.

I guess we can now throw the last shovelfull of dirt on the grave of that claim. ID is not only a religious stance, it is now more or less openly a bitterly sectarian, fundamentalist religious Christian claim, primarily of use for "rumbles" against less science-denying denominations of Christianity.

Dennis Venema said: John, this event was emphatically NOT organized by the DI. It was organized by an independent organization that has no ties to any of the groups invited to present there. You might want to check your facts before making sweeping claims. I appreciate Steve's viewpoint, and I thought he and Arthur did a fine job at Biola. I don't think there needs to be a one-size-fits-all approach here. I'm glad you appreciated their efforts as well. I hope you won't take offense, but you weren't exactly the target audience for this recent event. Best, Dennis

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: That may be Dennis, but, as I just noted in my reply to Rich Blinne, I think Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson were able to accomplish a lot more at Biola.

Arthur Hunt noted the kind of approach taken by Dennis is better. Note this following postscript on the Biola event:

I mentioned some “professorial” activities that ended up making this trip quite rewarding. One of these was something I volunteered to do once I accepted Biola’s invitation to be on the panel of critics. I knew almost nothing about Biola, and I decided that one thing that would take some of the edge off of this experience would be to offer to give a seminar or lecture to the Biola scientific community. I decided that a lecture would be a better way to interact with students and Biola faculty outside of the adversarial, “us vs. them” atmosphere of the Meyer event. To my great and good fortune, the head of the Apologetics Program (that was organizing the event) forwarded my offer to the science faculty, and I was able to give a lecture to a large and diverse class. The lecture itself was a challenge, and I am not sure how well I pulled it off – the class was a collection of upper-level students who had a lot of biology course background, and younger science majors who had yet to take many (if any) biology classes. I chose to talk about some of the behind-the-scenes developments in plant biology that contributed to the unfolding of the small RNA story. This allowed me to talk about plant biotechnology (something that might interest a first-year student) and small RNAs. Needless to say, the class reacted very well to my lecture, and I got several excellent and insightful questions throughout the talk. The following interactions I had with my two faculty hosts for the afternoon were also splendid. I was impressed, and I must ashamedly admit pleasantly surprised, by the students and my two hosts. I can only hope that this effort on my behalf allowed the students and their professors to see a “critic” in a different and more complimentary light.

harold said: RBH - The comments section to Jim Kidder's remarks contain something cogent that everyone, including me, seems to have overlooked. The commenter, understandably, notes that the DI does not present itself as a Christian organization. But in fact, now the Discovery Institute is, it seems, openly in the business of calling itself Christian and telling other Christians that they are bad if honestly they accept the scientific evidence for evolution, rather than engaging in dishonest denial in the name of ideological purity. (Yes I am aware that there are a few very disturbed Jewish individuals associated with the DI, before someone brings that up.) So the role reversal is complete. Not long ago, not only was "intelligent design" claimed to be non-sectarian, that claim was the whole point of its existence. The whole point was to disguise creationism as "not religious" so that sectarian denial of evolution could be snuck into public school science classes in a more secure and court-proof way. In fact, there are still occasional out-of-date trolls, fundamentalist Christians themselves, who show up to beller that "ID isn't religious" at random intervals. I guess we can now throw the last shovelfull of dirt on the grave of that claim. ID is not only a religious stance, it is now more or less openly a bitterly sectarian, fundamentalist religious Christian claim, primarily of use for "rumbles" against less science-denying denominations of Christianity.

John Kwok said: You're forgetting Rich that Arthur and Steve had opportunities to hold court solely for themselves without the presence of a "notable" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer like Stephen C. Meyer. That is what I was emphasizing in my recent comments, and you seem to have forgotten that.

Richard Blinne -

Francis Collins has a habit of making statements that go just a teeny tiny bit beyond the boundaries of what annoys me.

We'll probably never know exactly how, in a literal historical sense, life originated on earth. So it's hypothetically a gap that could be a persistent one, in a very concrete sense.

But I'd like to think that we'll have some very good models some day.

Collins is an excellent example of a religious person who contributes enormously to science (and that's a fact - we can debate his merits relative to other highly creative and productive scientists, of course, but he has made important discoveries and led important projects, and to say otherwise would be very biased), but maybe he should get in touch with the Jesuits or something. He has a tendency to use outdated stuff when he turns to apologetics. I'm not religious or interested in apologetics myself, but if he's going to do it publicly, he should bone up a little.

He's also been known to indulge in the anthropomorphic fallacy, which aggravates me because the people who use it should be able to see why it's an incorrect statement about probability. "It's so improbable that the universe would be fine tuned just for us". Well, we're the ones observing the universe, so the conditional probability that it is arranged in a way that allowed our existence, when viewed retrospectively, is 1. There's nothing inherently atheistic about conditional probability; it was discovered by a clergyman. Geneticists are taught about conditional probability, I can guarantee you that. I'm sure he's used it correctly in many much more difficult situations.

Also, even if it were a priori improbable, the mere use of the term "improbable" is an argument against miraculousness. Improbable things can happen, it's impossible things that require miracles.

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: You're forgetting Rich that Arthur and Steve had opportunities to hold court solely for themselves without the presence of a "notable" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer like Stephen C. Meyer. That is what I was emphasizing in my recent comments, and you seem to have forgotten that.

What in the world are you talking about? When Steve and Arthur debate ID they hold court? When Darell and Randy have sessions when they are alone on stage without any DI folk for Q&A they don't? Check the links in the post. There were many more sessions than the one that got cancelled.

harold said: Richard Blinne - Francis Collins has a habit of making statements that go just a teeny tiny bit beyond the boundaries of what annoys me. We'll probably never know exactly how, in a literal historical sense, life originated on earth. So it's hypothetically a gap that could be a persistent one, in a very concrete sense. But I'd like to think that we'll have some very good models some day. Collins is an excellent example of a religious person who contributes enormously to science (and that's a fact - we can debate his merits relative to other highly creative and productive scientists, of course, but he has made important discoveries and led important projects, and to say otherwise would be very biased), but maybe he should get in touch with the Jesuits or something. He has a tendency to use outdated stuff when he turns to apologetics. I'm not religious or interested in apologetics myself, but if he's going to do it publicly, he should bone up a little. He's also been known to indulge in the anthropomorphic fallacy, which aggravates me because the people who use it should be able to see why it's an incorrect statement about probability. "It's so improbable that the universe would be fine tuned just for us". Well, we're the ones observing the universe, so the conditional probability that it is arranged in a way that allowed our existence, when viewed retrospectively, is 1. There's nothing inherently atheistic about conditional probability; it was discovered by a clergyman. Geneticists are taught about conditional probability, I can guarantee you that. I'm sure he's used it correctly in many much more difficult situations. Also, even if it were a priori improbable, the mere use of the term "improbable" is an argument against miraculousness. Improbable things can happen, it's impossible things that require miracles.

I might also add too that my opposition to the AMNH debate was sufficiently vehement for Ken to tell me via e-mail to shut up. Maybe you should have been as strident in your warnings to Randy Isaac.

harold said: Richard Blinne - Francis Collins has a habit of making statements that go just a teeny tiny bit beyond the boundaries of what annoys me. We'll probably never know exactly how, in a literal historical sense, life originated on earth. So it's hypothetically a gap that could be a persistent one, in a very concrete sense. But I'd like to think that we'll have some very good models some day.

John Kwok said: I might also add too that my opposition to the AMNH debate was sufficiently vehement for Ken to tell me via e-mail to shut up. Maybe you should have been as strident in your warnings to Randy Isaac.

mrg said:

Dornier Pfeil said: It should at least be fair to say that it is inherently NONtheistic, shouldn't it?

Do-335: The one thing that immediately pops up in my mind when this question comes up: in what way is evo science different from the rest of science in this fashion? I find it hard to come up with a list of scientific theories that involve Gods. Sort of like the old cartoon about the prof scribbling equations with: "AND THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS ... " stuck in the middle.

Paul Burnett said:

Dornier Pfeil said: Should Science be considerate of religion?

If you want to get funding for your Super-Duper-Collider from Senator Blowhard's committee, you better keep in mind that Senator Blowhard was elected by a bunch of scientific illiterates who may take offense if you tell them you can produce the God Particle. And you're better off not mentioning where you get your stem cells if you want funding for your medical research program. The question isn't really "Should Science be considerate of religion?" Since science is a human endeavor, it's sometimes difficult to keep politics out of science, and politics has to be considerate of religion. Remember Senator Proxmire.

Paul Burnett,

I also wonder what would happen, if the scientifically illiterate crowd managed to gain enough political power to elect a Senator Blowhard who could be convinced to sponsor a bill and enough political power to convince the whole Congress to pass it, that says the earth is flat and all who disagree will be rounded up and put into death camps. Should science be considerate of that? Pragmatically, no question, living is a whole lot nicer than dying. But the liberal bias of reality will remain unaltered.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me in your post at 12:06, but I'll respond to a couple of points anyhow ... just in case.

(1) Science is indeed nontheistic.

(2) Science should be indifferent to religion.

SWT said: I'm not sure if you're referring to me in your post at 12:06, but I'll respond to a couple of points anyhow ... just in case. (1) Science is indeed nontheistic. (2) Science should be indifferent to religion.

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: I might also add too that my opposition to the AMNH debate was sufficiently vehement for Ken to tell me via e-mail to shut up. Maybe you should have been as strident in your warnings to Randy Isaac.

So, like what, the debate was called off or something? I think that happened.

By its very nature Science must and should remain agnostic. As I noted a few days ago here, we don't have any discussions of a "Christian" perspective on astrophysics, on chemistry, or even geology. Then why the special treatment for evolutionary biology? Simply because the fact that common descent is true and that implies we are related to the Great Apes? Forgive me, but this does border on the ridiculous IMHO.

I presume that you don't disagree with my assessment that those at this recent conference could and should have done what Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson did at Biola, namely, independently of the Dishonesty Institute and its pathetic staff of mendacious intellectual pornographers, spent considerably more time with a Christian audience. Unfortunately given the conference's format, it probably wasn't possible, which is why I believe that, in the long run, what Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson did at Biola will have a far more important impact on influencing Evangelical Christian views on science, especially biological evolution, than this recent event.

John Kwok said: I presume that you don't disagree with my assessment that those at this recent conference could and should have done what Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson did at Biola, namely, independently of the Dishonesty Institute and its pathetic staff of mendacious intellectual pornographers, spent considerably more time with a Christian audience. Unfortunately given the conference's format, it probably wasn't possible, which is why I believe that, in the long run, what Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson did at Biola will have a far more important impact on influencing Evangelical Christian views on science, especially biological evolution, than this recent event.

John Kwok said: As I noted a few days ago here, we don't have any discussions of a "Christian" perspective on astrophysics, on chemistry, or even geology. Then why the special treatment for evolutionary biology?

eric said:

John Kwok said: As I noted a few days ago here, we don't have any discussions of a "Christian" perspective on astrophysics, on chemistry, or even geology. Then why the special treatment for evolutionary biology?

Christian geology. Christian cosmology. On chemistry: nuclear chemistry and radiochemistry are affected by the whole age of the earth thing. So yes, we get fundamtentalist "christian" perspectives on all these things. The debate is a lot bigger than just biological evolution, though of the various scientific theories that is clearly the primary target of fundie ire. But I'll combine two earlier poster's comments: we need to recognize that science and scientists are different. There may be no theistic science, but there are theistic scientists, and very often one side or the other will bring up the theism (or atheism) of scientists for political purposes. As scientists we may think of this as dirty pool/illegitimate reasoning, but character considerations and behavior outside the workplace are a part of politics whether we like it or not. People make political decisions based on non-policy-relevant traits. You can complain that they shouldn't, but they do. Personally I tend to think of the adjectives as unconnected to each other. 'Theistic scientist' is like 'German accountant.' Using the adjectives "German" and "accountant" together does not imply to me that Germany has its own special bookkeeping system. It means the person you're talking about is both a German and an accountant.

Rich Blinne said: I couldn't disagree more. Not only was what you are talking possible at the conference, that's precisely what did happen. The purpose of the conference was to allow many voices to speak. ID has a monopoly in the evangelical church through Meyer's influence on videos of just one side such as the Truth Project and True U. The debate portion of the Biola visits was organized by DI while the Vibrant Dance conference only had DI as one of many participants. They tried to turn this into a "rumble" and they failed because Darell blocked them. Even you noted for Biola the progress was made when Arthur and Steve were outside the debate format and could be teachers instead. There was a lot of that going on at the conference because that was the purpose of the conference despite the DI's failed attempt at hijacking it. So, in both cases we had people interacting directly with an evangelical audience which were more productive but in the more recent case without the "rumble". When this happened, evangelical laypeople -- being the fair-minded people they are -- listened to and understood the evidence that the DI propaganda machine was denying them. More importantly than all of this was the conference was on video. As I stated above ID and only ID videos are shown in the evangelical church. People will get to see for themselves Randy explaining why ID gets information theory all wrong and Dennis being cool in a debate and Darell giving his testimony showing the audience we don't have horns. Having ID people there helps and doesn't hurt. It's not the people who are there that's the problem, but it's the format of one-sided debate. ID has promoted a false narrative that they are being picked on for their faith rather than they are being picked on because the science is simply not there. By also turning up the temperature they can also sell the other false narrative that people disagree with them because we are not confident in our position as proven by our stridency. The video will show them being treated as brothers and that the disagreement between us stems from their utter failure to make their case. All Christians believe in intelligent design but ID has failed to prove it. Since they conflate themselves with Christianity as a whole when they go down in flames they bring all other Christians down with them. Evangelicals can see with their own eyes why the scientific community rejects ID and discover that mainstream science is not a threat to faith. This was the point of the conference and it succeeded despite the efforts of some to sell the warfare model.

John Kwok said: I think far more useful would have been a serious dialogue with someone like eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson - who, as a product of the "Bible Belt", understands it well - who would gently, but still firmly, explain why it is ridiculous for otherwise well meaning people in the Evangelical Christian community to reject the scientific validity of biological evolution, in a setting that included Wilson - and maybe others like Steve Matheson and Keith Miller - who could hold "court" without any potential - or actual - interference from the Dishonesty Institute.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: I think far more useful would have been a serious dialogue with someone like eminent evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson - who, as a product of the "Bible Belt", understands it well - who would gently, but still firmly, explain why it is ridiculous for otherwise well meaning people in the Evangelical Christian community to reject the scientific validity of biological evolution, in a setting that included Wilson - and maybe others like Steve Matheson and Keith Miller - who could hold "court" without any potential - or actual - interference from the Dishonesty Institute.

It seems to me that one just has to wait and see what ultimately happens. If this approach can start getting people in evangelical churches to start learning the real science instead of the fake stuff they have been fed for close to 50 years now, they might start listening to other scientists also. I haven’t found that most scientists are mean spirited toward religious people; we all work among them quite regularly. And they come in all different religions, races, and nationalities. We get along just fine. The “religious” ones that draw our ire are those hucksters at the DI, AiG, ICR and a few others that push pseudo-science and lie routinely. Nobody should like them no matter what these charlatans want to call themselves. Churches need to start cleaning house of these hucksters. Forgiving them and taking them in only emboldens them and shelters from being prosecuted for fraud. They are interested in only their own aggrandizement; not the spiritual or intellectual welfare of other church members.

I'd also note too that Steve Matheson is most likely right in condemning the organization of this conference since it was based on the false pretense of "Christian unity". Blinne - and apparently even Venema, who presented there - haven't really addressed this point in their comments here. Steve's critique was a rather damning condemnation on both scientific and Christian grounds, and it is really a shame that neither Darrel Falk nor Randy Isaac heeded his most prescient warning.

Mike Elzinga said: Churches need to start cleaning house of these hucksters. Forgiving them and taking them in only emboldens them and shelters from being prosecuted for fraud. They are interested in only their own aggrandizement; not the spiritual or intellectual welfare of other church members.

eric said: Personally I tend to think of the adjectives as unconnected to each other. 'Theistic scientist' is like 'German accountant.' Using the adjectives "German" and "accountant" together does not imply to me that Germany has its own special bookkeeping system. It means the person you're talking about is both a German and an accountant.

Anyone who thinks that this conference was designed to promote a better understanding of science from a Christian perspective should realize that most of the breakout sessions were dominated by Dishonesty Institute staff, including sessions devoted to Bill Dembski:

http://vibrantdance.org/symposium-1/breakout-sessions

Of the organizations involved in co-sponsoring this conference, one of the others involved was Chuck Colson's organization (An avowed creationist, Colson is also a Dishonesty Institute supporter.):

http://vibrantdance.org/symposium-1/co-sponsors

IMHO this was truly not a forum designed to promote better understanding between science and Christianity, but rather, to promote further ignorance of valid science amongst some Christians, given the extensive participation of Dishonesty Institute staff such as Bill Dembski and Stephen Meyer. This merely reinforces my belief that a much better forum would have been one comprised solely of those like E. O. Wilson - well known mainstream scientists who understand Evangelical Christianity and are willing to engage with it - and Evangelical Christians who are also scientists, such as Keith Miller and Steve Matheson.

John Kwok said: This is, after all, the very point which Steve Matheson concluded his critique of the conference, but one apparently lost on the likes of Venema, Falk, Isaac and Blinne:

Mike Elzinga said: Churches need to start cleaning house of these hucksters. Forgiving them and taking them in only emboldens them and shelters from being prosecuted for fraud. They are interested in only their own aggrandizement; not the spiritual or intellectual welfare of other church members.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: This is, after all, the very point which Steve Matheson concluded his critique of the conference, but one apparently lost on the likes of Venema, Falk, Isaac and Blinne:

Mike Elzinga said: Churches need to start cleaning house of these hucksters. Forgiving them and taking them in only emboldens them and shelters from being prosecuted for fraud. They are interested in only their own aggrandizement; not the spiritual or intellectual welfare of other church members.

Throughout the period from the early 1970s to nearly the present, I have often wondered where these religious scientists, who presumably understood science, were coming from. It also occurred to me that these scientists didn’t understand the fraud being perpetrated by the ID/creationist crowd; and perhaps didn’t really know the science very well themselves. In those instances where I had some information about what was going on within some of those evangelical churches, and even in some of the more moderate churches, I didn’t get the impression that this was being addressed. In fact, I had the distinct impression that the people in these churches didn’t want to face this issue. There would be responses that suggested that they didn’t think they should be fighting with their “Christian brothers” and that praying about it would solve the problem. You have to admit that the ID/creationist scam has been quite effective; and many of the evangelical churches have been duped so badly that they are having a hard time facing up to that fact. And then there are still all those “delicate issues” with church dogma. I suspect it’s going to be a while, if ever, before any of this gets ironed out in these particular religious circles. There’s too much at stake; and still a tendency to deny reality.

Hi John,

Yes, you're more than welcome to voice an opinion. No one is suggesting otherwise. My comment was that you were not the intended audience of this meeting.

The fact of the matter is that either this conference would have gone ahead without those from the EC/TE view or with this view represented. Is it a perfect setting? No. Would turning down the invitation and boycotting the meeting have been an improvement? Here we disagree.

The meeting was challenging for me at times, I admit. The ID and RTB folks, as we all know, can throw up more dust and smoke than a careful scientist can address in a short time to a non-specialist audience. Still, every time I got discouraged, some random person from the attendees would seek me out to offer their thanks that we were there, and that we were presenting accurate science. Several others I spoke to were clearly starting to have doubts about the ID movement. This was especially the case for attendees younger than myself (i.e. in their 20s).

Had Biologos not been there, these things would not have happened. The fact that a group of real scientists who are also "real Christians" (with apologies to the scotsman) were there, presenting accurate science, and more importantly, saying they don't buy what the ID / RTB groups are selling, said a lot to the attendees.

So, was it perfect? Nope. I doubt there is any perfect way to address these issues. Was it worthwhile? Yep. The fact that Darrel took the high road also was not lost on the attendees at all. It spoke volumes.

Dennis Venema said: Hi John, Yes, you're more than welcome to voice an opinion. No one is suggesting otherwise. My comment was that you were not the intended audience of this meeting. The fact of the matter is that either this conference would have gone ahead without those from the EC/TE view or with this view represented. Is it a perfect setting? No. Would turning down the invitation and boycotting the meeting have been an improvement? Here we disagree. The meeting was challenging for me at times, I admit. The ID and RTB folks, as we all know, can throw up more dust and smoke than a careful scientist can address in a short time to a non-specialist audience. Still, every time I got discouraged, some random person from the attendees would seek me out to offer their thanks that we were there, and that we were presenting accurate science. Several others I spoke to were clearly starting to have doubts about the ID movement. This was especially the case for attendees younger than myself (i.e. in their 20s). Had Biologos not been there, these things would not have happened. The fact that a group of real scientists who are also "real Christians" (with apologies to the scotsman) were there, presenting accurate science, and more importantly, saying they don't buy what the ID / RTB groups are selling, said a lot to the attendees. So, was it perfect? Nope. I doubt there is any perfect way to address these issues. Was it worthwhile? Yep. The fact that Darrel took the high road also was not lost on the attendees at all. It spoke volumes.

John, repetition does not make your argument more persuasive. Let's let that line of discussion fade away, please.

Laurence Krauss is the only prominent New Atheist who will reach out to Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, speak at their institutions, and treat them with civility and respect. Maybe what is needed is a major grassroots effort by ASA and BioLogos to make similar kinds of engagement with such audiences. Hope you can make such a recommendation to your colleagues belonging to both organizations. IMHO I believe such a strategy may prove to be far more effective in the long term.

RBH said: John, repetition does not make your argument more persuasive. Let's let that line of discussion fade away, please.

One quick last comment - John, Biologos is pursuing the types of venues that you prefer as well. One example is the professional development program they are running for science teachers from Christian high schools. A second would be the conferences they put on themselves - for pastors, Christians in the sciences, etc. Your point is a good one - these types of meetings aren't the be-all and end-all of how to approach these issues. Rest assured that Biologos doesn't think so either.

What I find especially encouraging is that Biologos was INVITED to this event at all. It means that Biologos is gaining credibility as an evangelical viewpoint with the very audience that needs most to hear what they have to say.

Dennis Venema said: One quick last comment - John, Biologos is pursuing the types of venues that you prefer as well. One example is the professional development program they are running for science teachers from Christian high schools. A second would be the conferences they put on themselves - for pastors, Christians in the sciences, etc. Your point is a good one - these types of meetings aren't the be-all and end-all of how to approach these issues. Rest assured that Biologos doesn't think so either. What I find especially encouraging is that Biologos was INVITED to this event at all. It means that Biologos is gaining credibility as an evangelical viewpoint with the very audience that needs most to hear what they have to say.

John Kwok said: Science and faith are two different modes of thought and should not be mixed, except maybe in a philosophy or history of science setting...

eric said:

John Kwok said: Science and faith are two different modes of thought and should not be mixed, except maybe in a philosophy or history of science setting...

Hogwash. Scientific hypotheses can come from anywhere. Our most famous stories are how people got their ideas from lying in a bathtub, or a dream about snakes, or sitting under a tree. Those stories are probably myths, but the point of such stories is to teach young scientists that ideas can come from anywhere. Don't ignore your "off-time" ideas. That the legitimacy of a hypothesis is not decided based on its origin, its decided based on testing. And that means [cue drumroll] there's nothing necessarily illegitimate about a hypothesis coming from a revelation. "Not mixing" is baloney because hypothesis generation is an anything goes process. You're not just allowed to mix modes of thought, you're practically encouraged to. Now, a problem arises when a religion tries to call their revelation a form of evidence, or give religious ideas some special extra weight. But there is no problem with a religious person using their faith as a source of ideas to be tested. They still have to convince some funding source that their idea is worth resources to test, but that's another story.