Comments on: Christian Objections to Intelligent Design http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/ The Words & Thoughts of a United Methodist Pastor Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:39:44 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Matt http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-116 Matt Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:47:38 +0000 http://catchingmeddlers.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-116 Jonathan, I appreciate you offering this substantive comment. I look forward to spending some time thinking about your response. Jonathan, I appreciate you offering this substantive comment. I look forward to spending some time thinking about your response.

]]>
By: Jonathan Bartlett http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-115 Jonathan Bartlett Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:13:09 +0000 http://catchingmeddlers.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-115 I think that Collins ultimately misunderstands intelligent design. Intelligent design is ultimately just about agency. Here's the real question that Intelligent Design asks -- is choice real or imaginary? The materialists say that it is imaginary. There is chance and necessity, but choice is not part of the picture. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, believes that choice is a fundamental property of the world. That the world is in fact open for choice. And, in so thinking, many also believe that the artifacts of choice contingencies are identifiable and distinct. The idea that ID'ers think that certain systems are "unevolvable" is in fact false. Certainly some of them do, but many, including Behe who coined the term irreducible complexity, believes that these structures are in fact evolvable. What he does NOT think, is that they are evolvable via random mutation + natural selection. So, they are evolvable, but via a telic, not an atelic process. This doesn't mean that God reached down and fiddled with some nucleotides several times throughout history (though there are some who believe that -- Dembski I think is one of them). But instead, when evolution happens, especially the big, holistic systems at work in biology, that these are generated as part of a planned system of adaptation, not a happenstance system of random mutations and natural selection. Behe's next book, <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/baraminology-20/detail/0743296206/002-3182718-1537647" rel="nofollow">The Edge of Evolution</a>, will show that almost all observable instances of evolution DO NOT happen on the random mutation + natural selection model, but instead on the more teleological, a-lot-of-coordinated-parts-at-once-model. The evidence against the natural selection model are quite significant, ranging from the mathematical (No Free Lunch and optimization theory) to the biochemical (read any biochemical journal and you'll find mechanisms, not random mutations, being the cause of evolution) to the meta-mathematical (there is a great paper called "Biological Function and the Genetic Code are Interdependent" which shows, using Godel's incompleteness theorem, that any self-referential coding system requires an intelligent agent to produce). I think that Collins ultimately misunderstands intelligent design. Intelligent design is ultimately just about agency. Here’s the real question that Intelligent Design asks — is choice real or imaginary? The materialists say that it is imaginary. There is chance and necessity, but choice is not part of the picture. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, believes that choice is a fundamental property of the world. That the world is in fact open for choice. And, in so thinking, many also believe that the artifacts of choice contingencies are identifiable and distinct.

The idea that ID’ers think that certain systems are “unevolvable” is in fact false. Certainly some of them do, but many, including Behe who coined the term irreducible complexity, believes that these structures are in fact evolvable. What he does NOT think, is that they are evolvable via random mutation + natural selection. So, they are evolvable, but via a telic, not an atelic process. This doesn’t mean that God reached down and fiddled with some nucleotides several times throughout history (though there are some who believe that — Dembski I think is one of them). But instead, when evolution happens, especially the big, holistic systems at work in biology, that these are generated as part of a planned system of adaptation, not a happenstance system of random mutations and natural selection. Behe’s next book, The Edge of Evolution, will show that almost all observable instances of evolution DO NOT happen on the random mutation + natural selection model, but instead on the more teleological, a-lot-of-coordinated-parts-at-once-model.

The evidence against the natural selection model are quite significant, ranging from the mathematical (No Free Lunch and optimization theory) to the biochemical (read any biochemical journal and you’ll find mechanisms, not random mutations, being the cause of evolution) to the meta-mathematical (there is a great paper called “Biological Function and the Genetic Code are Interdependent” which shows, using Godel’s incompleteness theorem, that any self-referential coding system requires an intelligent agent to produce).

]]>
By: Matt http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-112 Matt Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:29:21 +0000 http://catchingmeddlers.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-112 George, I appreciate you stopping by. I'm not sure I follow that last statement's logic. George, I appreciate you stopping by. I’m not sure I follow that last statement’s logic.

]]>
By: George Shollenberger http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-109 George Shollenberger Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:48:39 +0000 http://catchingmeddlers.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-109 I am the author of "The First Scientific Proof of God" (June 2006) This proof reveals God's intelligent design and a modern creation theory. The book could have been titled as "The Unity of Science,Theology,and Religion and the Ends of Atheism and Evolution" The personalities in my thoughts are Abraham, Moses, Plato, Jesus Christ, Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, and Cantor. In the modern creation, I use a system of mmortal spiritual atoms, which forms a system of functional things. The infinite sets of changing things are counted with Cantor's transfinite numbers. There is no beginning or end in this development of panentheism. A single symbolic language will reveal those endless rest periods of God that exist beyond the 7th day mentioned by Moses. I made a review of Dr. Collin's book on Amazon.com. My biggest concerns today are the claims of physicists and Christians that the world comes to an end. These claims cannot be proven. Yet these claims are developing suicide bombers and child molesters. George Shollenberger I am the author of “The First Scientific Proof of God” (June 2006) This proof reveals God’s intelligent design and a modern creation theory. The book could have been titled as “The Unity of Science,Theology,and Religion and the Ends of Atheism and Evolution”

The personalities in my thoughts are Abraham, Moses, Plato, Jesus Christ, Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, and Cantor. In the modern creation, I use a system of mmortal spiritual atoms, which forms a system of functional things. The infinite sets of changing things are counted with Cantor’s transfinite numbers. There is no beginning or end in this development of panentheism. A single symbolic language will reveal those endless rest periods of God that exist beyond the 7th day mentioned by Moses.

I made a review of Dr. Collin’s book on Amazon.com.

My biggest concerns today are the claims of physicists and Christians that the world comes to an end. These claims cannot be proven. Yet these claims are developing suicide bombers and child molesters.

George Shollenberger

]]>
By: Matt http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-106 Matt Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:39:44 +0000 http://catchingmeddlers.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-106 Thanks jd, I'm glad you decided to wade in with your comments. I think the idea is that there is likely no system that is so complex it could not have been gradually formed by evolutionary processes. What Collins is advocating against is a "God of the gaps" approach that assigns God's activity to those areas we don't understand. With this approach God's potential area of action decreases with every new discovery, and that is unacceptable for a Christian. With apologies to significant Christian thinkers such as Kevin Corcoran, I think we need to avoid reductive materialism and the idea that God's divine action is relegated to those areas (temporal and spatial) that we don't understand. I think that's may be where you're going with your thoughts about miracles and evidence of ignorance. Thanks jd, I’m glad you decided to wade in with your comments. I think the idea is that there is likely no system that is so complex it could not have been gradually formed by evolutionary processes. What Collins is advocating against is a “God of the gaps” approach that assigns God’s activity to those areas we don’t understand. With this approach God’s potential area of action decreases with every new discovery, and that is unacceptable for a Christian. With apologies to significant Christian thinkers such as Kevin Corcoran, I think we need to avoid reductive materialism and the idea that God’s divine action is relegated to those areas (temporal and spatial) that we don’t understand. I think that’s may be where you’re going with your thoughts about miracles and evidence of ignorance.

]]>
By: J.Driskill http://catchingmeddlers.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-105 J.Driskill Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:08:56 +0000 http://catchingmeddlers.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/christian-objections-to-intelligent-design/#comment-105 There are plenty of people out there who confidently express their certainty concerning issues they are completely unqualified to comment on. I prefer not to appear to join them. That being said... Intelligent Design suggests "irreducible" complexity as evidence of intelligent design, presumably by God. The argument appears to be structured in such a way to suggest that where there is no "irreducible" complexity, God is taking a break or otherwise letting the machinery run its course. This strikes me as a sort of punctuated deism (apologies to Eldredge and Gould). It is at least aesthetically unappealing. The fact that we are able to understand any the process should be recognized as being the true miracle. And the faith that those parts that escape our grasp are nevertheless rational (understandable in principle) is a tribute to the majesty of God. It is possible that there are signs to be found as evidence of deliberate design, similar in concept to the signs described in the Gospel of John. But then, how do we distinguish between real miracles and mere evidence of our own ignorance? Thank you for allowing the space for my meandering. I doubt that this confused Southern Baptist is in any way qualified to respond to Dr. Collins. --jd There are plenty of people out there who confidently express their certainty concerning issues they are completely unqualified to comment on. I prefer not to appear to join them. That being said…

Intelligent Design suggests “irreducible” complexity as evidence of intelligent design, presumably by God. The argument appears to be structured in such a way to suggest that where there is no “irreducible” complexity, God is taking a break or otherwise letting the machinery run its course. This strikes me as a sort of punctuated deism (apologies to Eldredge and Gould). It is at least aesthetically unappealing.

The fact that we are able to understand any the process should be recognized as being the true miracle. And the faith that those parts that escape our grasp are nevertheless rational (understandable in principle) is a tribute to the majesty of God.

It is possible that there are signs to be found as evidence of deliberate design, similar in concept to the signs described in the Gospel of John. But then, how do we distinguish between real miracles and mere evidence of our own ignorance?

Thank you for allowing the space for my meandering. I doubt that this confused Southern Baptist is in any way qualified to respond to Dr. Collins.

–jd

]]>