Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Date: Fri May 29 2009 - 15:46:56 EDT

Ted,

Are we talking about "ID" here or are we talking about "id"?

I believe in design because I believe in a designer, not the other way
around. Of course, the world is designed. And, I too believe that
"evolution was led along certain beneficial lines". But is this a
scientific and biological claim or is this a theological claim? Does
Asa Gray's Darwinism look any different from Charles Darwin's
Darwinism from a biological/scientific perspective? Or is it simply in
the their different beliefs in how God was involved in the process?

Does Asa Gray's biology textbook look any different from Charles
Darwin's? (noting, obviously, that Darwin unapologetically mixes his
biology with his theological musings in characteristic 19th century
fashion)

Does Francis Collins' biology textbook look any different from Richard
Dawkins'? Notice I don't want to compare "Language of God" with "The
God Delusion".

TG

On May 29, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Ted Davis wrote:

>
>
> Terry writes, " I don't quite understand how ID and E are compatible
> and maybe Ted
> can chime in here."
>
> ****
>
> OK, I will chime in. :-)
>
> Terry, it could be that you are right and I am wrong; it could be
> that ID and any form or E are incompatible, although I would say as
> an historian (with some expertise in the history of the evolution/
> design controversy) that belief in design and belief in evolution
> (here understood as common descent rather than special creation) are
> entirely compatible -- at least they have been understood that way
> by a large number of scientists, starting with Asa Gray and
> continuing right down to Polkinghorne and Collins today. I hold the
> same view myself.
>
> Cameron allows that "front loaded" design is compatible with TE, and
> I agree with him.
>
> Thus the question is, whether ID per se (as vs "design," used more
> generically) is compatible with any form of E. I would say (again)
> that it is, but your points about the attacks on the specific
> mechanisms, esp when coupled with the tone of ID (namely, that
> "Darwinism" in both scientific and cultural forms is the enemy),
> argue against this. If Denton and Behe (at least the Behe who
> affirms common descent, not the Behe who attacks Darwinian
> mechanisms) are to be taken as definitive of ID, at least ID as
> front-loaded design, then ID is not much different from this view,
> expressed by A H Compton in 1932 (this is taken from part two of my
> essay, to appear in PSCF in September): "It seems to the nth degree
> improbable that such an intricate and interesting world could have
> ordered itself out of particles with random character.
>
> I entirely agree with Compton on this, and if that counts as ID then
> I'm an ID proponent. I also entirely agree with Asa Gray, that
> evolution was led along certain beneficial lines. If that makes me
> an ID proponent, then I'm an ID proponent. (Those in the know tell
> me that, since I don't believe the design inference is scientific,
> I'm not an ID proponent. Who am I to say? I certainly don't see ID
> as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution, not without an
> effort actually to provide an alternative that offers an equally
> convincing narrative of natural history.) At the same time, I do
> not object to Ken Miller or any other biologist trying to show that
> the bacterial flagellum might not be irreducibly complex, and I
> accept the type III secreter as an entirely fair reply to Behe;
> whether it's a fully decisive reply is a fair point of disagreement,
> but I do think it's a fair reply. I don't have a dog in that fight;
> and, unlike the dyslexic atheist, I don't have a god (or refutation
> of god) in it either.
>
> Ted
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 29 15:47:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 29 2009 - 15:47:11 EDT