Pardon if this is already talked about ad nauseum: I couldn't find it on a search.
Is OSC an theistic evolutionist?
**SPOILER ALERT** I was reading the Alvin Maker #2 book and in the Crystal City where Alvin saw the first human family, who had evolved from apes, and they sinned like Adam and Eve. the theme is also throughout all the other books (it does, after all, make better science fiction). **/SPOILER ALERT**
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
His world watch essays show him throwing his lot in with the Discovery Institute's pseudoscience (Behe, Intelligent Design, et al) and supporting it wholeheartedly. For all intents and purposes, that alone indicates that he is a theistic evolutionist.
I'm sure it's confirmed elsewhere.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
I completely disagree with Samprimary. Scott has already talked at various places about what he consciously believes. For example in his "Creation and Evolution in the Schools" essay he writes,
quote: Meanwhile ... what do I believe about the origin of life? I believe that God created it, employing and obeying natural laws, but at levels beyond our understanding. I believe we're here on this earth for God's beneficent purposes.
At the same time, regardless of how little he may know about various fields of science, he understands the methodology and process of science as well as any scientist I have ever met. In the same essay he writes,
quote: But good science always examines its theories and compares them to the evidence, to see if they are still adequate. That's how Newton's "laws" (i.e., theoretical constants) were able to be superseded by Einstein's -- not because they weren't true, but because they couldn't adequately explain all the phenomena that were being observed.
I specify "good science" because if, at any point, any theory becomes a dogma that no one is allowed to question, it stops being good science. Indeed, it stops being science at all, and becomes its opposite -- its enemy.
This kind of quick explanation of what science is appears in almost every one of OSC's essays where he talks about some scientific topic. Now look at this quote:
quote: Science examines ongoing processes that proceed from mechanical causes; Darwin, by convincingly describing evolution as such a process, opened the door to millions of insights into the workings of organisms of every size.
Make no mistake: Not just the fossil record, but virtually every close examination of biology at every level reveals utterly convincing evidence that evolution takes place, has always taken place, and continues to take place. There is also plenty of evidence that natural selection takes place.
OSC understands not just what science is, but that evolution is clearly a scientific theory and therefore the idea of "theistic evolution" is by definition a contradiction. I don't think it he could have said it any better than this:
quote: Here's the thing: If you say that things are as they are because God made them that way, then they are off limits to science. Science is simply unsuited to studying God. Science requires impersonal, repeatable testing. Its business is discovering causal relationships, and it can only work with mechanical cause.
There it is. Can we believe in God and do scientific research at the same time? Absolutely. Perhaps the Alvin Maker reference you cited shows one possibility of how a religious truth and a scientific theory may coincide at one point. Is this specific intersection of science and religion what OSC believes? Not necessarily, because he is not the character he writes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I specify "good science" because if, at any point, any theory becomes a dogma that no one is allowed to question, it stops being good science. Indeed, it stops being science at all, and becomes its opposite -- its enemy.
This is true. Where OSC goes wrong, however, is in misidentifying what's actually going on with ID, creationism, and evolution at the moment. We are not seeing brave people who ask possibly-unscientific questions being suppressed by the establishment, as Ben Stein would have you believe, and as OSC (and Jerry Pournelle, parenthetically) apparently do believe. Rather we are seeing people making the same criticisms we've seen for the last century being brushed aside in a rather exasperated manner. Now the exasperation may not be ideal, it is at least conceivable that it is causing us to miss something, but sheesh. There's a limit to how much patience you can require of actual humans, scientists or not. There is no dogma in science, but there are questions that have been answered, and it is not bad science to reply that "We've had this discussion; if you haven't anything new to say, please stop making noise so we can think about genuine problems".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also, a point that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: The Discovery Institute did, it is true, raise some interesting research questions - mainly by giving other scientists motivation to make them sit down and shut up, but hey, we'll take science where we can get it. For example, consider Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. Now he said this in the context that this proves the existence of a designer. But taken in isolation, it's not a bad problem: Just how did the flagellum evolve? Posed this way, it is a perfecty reasonable scientific question, and Behe was quite right to raise it. Where he went off the rails was in then ignoring all the papers that were published on the subject, and continuing to assert the irreducible complexity when this had in fact been disproved.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
That was a very accurate post, King of Men. I agree with you that Intelligent Design ideas have been responded to and is now largely empty of new ideas. Each of the components of the flagellum, for instance, do indeed have their own small evolutionary advantage which solves the irreducible complexity idea that each component is useless and therefore should not arise on its own.
However, I wonder if you would agree with me (and OSC) in the idea that in modern research, the idea of questioning Darwinian evolution will invite a harsh response and a quick claim that you are not a "scientist"? For example, in my experience the moment an undergraduate student questions the theory of evolution (in a purely scientific way), the professor will quickly respond that this is how religious fanatics and creationists try to spout their beliefs. The question is just completely silenced. For a graduate student, the professor will just look at the student as if to say, "please, you should know better". In this sense, OSC is right to say that the Darwinian model of evolution has almost become a religion in itself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Can we please try to distinguish between religion and dogma? Unless you can demonstrate someone praying to the Great Prophet Darwin, there is no religion here.
As for professors and undergraduates: What would you like the professor to do, precisely? What should a theology professor do, if confronted with a claim that Jesus was not divine, and therefore his entire teaching is a waste of time?
Edit: Actually, maybe that example wasn't such a good one, because what the theology professor ought to do is recognise the truth of the criticism and go do something useful. The biology professor, however, is backed up by actual evidence and has heard this claim many times before.
[ June 30, 2008, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I once wrote a (history) paper on how "The Origin of Species" was a success due to the sensationalistic nature of society. It wasn't a good paper and I wasn't critiquing Darwin's arguments or speaking about anything really scientific. Really it was more just musing, which is what the professor asked for. But because it was "questioning the validity of Darwin's research" (which it wasn't. I very carefully did not) I got a lesser grade on it.
It was frustrating.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
JustAskIndiana,
As to the idea of a student challenging a Professor on Evolution. If they are challenging some aspect of evolution, then there might be room for discussion. Evolution does not claim to answer all things for all people. There is still plenty of room for improvement and expansion on the theory. However, if the student as completely challenging the concept of Evolution in its entirety then the Professor was right to shoot it down.
Also, consider that there is an element of EGO involved here. Professors exist, in there own mind, to tell students what is truth. They generally don't like to have students tell them that they are wrong, or to discredit them in any way. The "ego" challenge and response is a normal human defensiveness, and is completely separate from science.
Many Professors, especially at lesser colleges, are Professors simply because they could not bring themselves to get a real job.
I don't think anyone of any competence wpuld deny that there are holes in the Theory of Evolution, just as there are holes and mysteries in all branches of science, just as there are huge gapping holes in religion. The difference is, science is trying to fill those hole, and religion is simply denying them.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Unless you can demonstrate someone praying to the Great Prophet Darwin, there is no religion here.
Services daily.
Monday: 11:00 Tuesday: 11:02 Wednesday: 11:05 Thursday: 11:11 Friday: noon
Posted by Pen Ohmsford (Member # 9783) on :
King of Men, I agree with you completely, I am a 100% evolutionist. I have had creationist friends give me presentations and the like, and their science is so awful it ashames me to be friends with them. The worst part is that most creationists I have met are strikingly unwilling to consider even the most basic arguments or evidence to the contrary.
However, I disagree with you that there is no dogma in science. Ideally, there is, but too many people get involved. Just watch a PBS documentary about Jesus some time, and it is breathtaking the amount of revisionism they add in to make Jesus more palatable to their liking. And they do it in the name of archeology.
BTW, in order to avoid a flame war, we should probably try to remain as civil as possible. Though it hasn't gotten bad - yet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Without disagreeing with your distinction between the ideal and the actual case, I must say that PBS documentary != science.
Posted by DecayedCordet (Member # 11676) on :
"For example, in my experience the moment an undergraduate student questions the theory of evolution (in a purely scientific way), the professor will quickly respond that this is how religious fanatics and creationists try to spout their beliefs." -this has occurred to me numerous times. Luckily for me, the Public school system doesn't hire teachers educated enough to state the actual data so I was able to pull off the "Darwinism is a scientific religion" schpeil just for the sake of being an ass. I believe in adaptation and selection and certainly this can lead to evolution, yet where to bind the seams between religious creationism and the evidence of evolution baffles me. But oh, do I want to visit the Creationist museum soon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I actually do too. They just come off as profoundly surreal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I must say that PBS documentary != science
I've seen this equation alot and I am unsure what the "!" means, could somebody enlighten me please?
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
"!" in this case means "not", so "!=" means "not equal to"
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
!= = <> = =/=
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
not equals is equal to less than greater than equals divided by equals?
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Exactly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks, I figured as much, but I was not sure.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: != = <> = =/=
or rather, != == <> == =/= Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Not in any language I use for coding. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Originally posted by samprimary: "His world watch essays show him throwing his lot in with the Discovery Institute's pseudoscience (Behe, Intelligent Design, et al) and supporting it wholeheartedly."
I remember reading at least one OSC column where he comes out pretty clearly against Intelligent Design. I'll try to find it.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Here's a quote from the World Watch column I remebered:
"But let me make it clear from the start that I believe Intelligent Design is wrong and potentially dangerous -- and shouldn't be taught in science classes as if it were a scientific theory, because it is not."
His position is a lot more complex than samprimary implies.
[ July 09, 2008, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay. I grant that he doesn't actually throw his lot in with ID.
He does still seem like he either is a theistic evolutionist assuming he doesn't believe that God/Devil/Whoever spontaneously generated fake evidence of evolution and the earth's geological age.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that his "ID is wrong" position is a new one for him (in print, at least); he was an ardent promoter of Behe a few years ago.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I agree, samprimary, that he is most likely a theistic evolutionist.
Posted by JemmyGrove (Member # 6707) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting that his "ID is wrong" position is a new one for him (in print, at least); he was an ardent promoter of Behe a few years ago.
Holding a belief in God and supporting ID as a scientific theory are two separate things. What he says is that ID shouldn't be taught in school science classes because it's not science -- it can't be tested. He never says he doesn't believe it (at least not to my admittedly short memory).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would like OSC's words on this, but I would bet real money (if I gambled and I don't) that he is a theistic evolutionist and DOESN'T believe in ID or Creationism. My clues are based on what I know about his religion. He is Mormon, he is intelligent, his son has expressed non-Creationist views, and he has critized Elder Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," one sine qua non of Mormon Creationists.
Holding each seperate means little, but together I think they add up. You have to also understand, as TomD. always thinks he does but little things like this give him away that he doesn't, Creationism means something very different to a Mormon than what other Christians who hold the position do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What he says is that ID shouldn't be taught in school science classes because it's not science -- it can't be tested.
Which is a reversal of his previous position, which was one of nothing but disdain for people suggesting ID should not be taught in school science classes.
quote:I would bet real money (if I gambled and I don't) that he is a theistic evolutionist and DOESN'T believe in ID or Creationism.
It's worth noting that theistic evolution is Intelligent Design. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's worth noting that his "ID is wrong" position is a new one for him (in print, at least); he was an ardent promoter of Behe a few years ago.
quote:
quote:What he says is that ID shouldn't be taught in school science classes because it's not science -- it can't be tested.
Which is a reversal of his previous position, which was one of nothing but disdain for people suggesting ID should not be taught in school science classes.
I don't think this is an accurate summary of, say, this article from two and a half years ago.
For example, he points out a serious problem with ID:
quote:Intelligent design uses the evil "must" word: Well, if random mutation plus natural selection can't account for the existence of this complex system, then it must have been brought into existence by some intelligent designer
Why? Why must that be the only alternative?
Just because the Darwinian model seems to be inadequate at the molecular level does not imply in any way that the only other explanation is purposive causation.
There might be several or even many other hypotheses. To believe in Intelligent Design is still a leap of faith.
And
quote:But if the Designists are right, and there is no natural explanation, no process of mechanical causation that can possibly lead to the automatic evolution of complex biochemical systems, then at that moment the subject ceases to be science at all, and becomes either history (what did the Designers do and why did they do it?) or theology (what does God mean by all this?).
That's fine. There are lots of subjects in this world that are worth studying, and in which true and valuable things can be discovered, which are not and cannot be science.
But when you purport to teach science in school, the subject you teach had better be science, and not somebody's religion in disguise.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting that theistic evolution is Intelligent Design.
BZZZZZ! Thanks for playing, but nope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For example, he points out a serious problem with ID...
Only so that he can later draw a parallel to an implied serious problem with the "bad science" of "Darwinism."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Thanks for playing, but nope.
How so? Intelligent Design merely claims that the process of speciation must have required a conscious input at some point. Theistic evolution -- the idea that God kicked off any particular evolutionary cycle -- is just as much a part of ID as the argument "God turned this dog into a goat" or something. Theistic evolution is certainly not traditional Creationism, but I see no reason why it can't fit under the ID blanket. After all, all ID really does is say "here are a bunch of gaps;" theistic evolution follows up by saying "God? He's in some of those gaps."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Only so that he can later draw a parallel to an implied serious problem with the "bad science" of "Darwinism."
Regardless of his reason, in that article he states that ID shouldn't be taught in schools and an indication that ID is, at least in part, wrong.
Both of which contradict your earlier characterization.
You were wrong about the timing of his stance, Tom.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Intelligent Design merely claims that the process of speciation must have required a conscious input at some point. Theistic evolution -- the idea that God kicked off any particular evolutionary cycle -- is just as much a part of ID as the argument "God turned this dog into a goat" or something. [Smile] Theistic evolution is certainly not traditional Creationism, but I see no reason why it can't fit under the ID blanket. After all, all ID really does is say "here are a bunch of gaps;" theistic evolution follows up by saying "God? He's in some of those gaps."
Theistic evolution doesn't require the existence of actual gaps.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Theistic Evolution means that gaps or no (and more likely no) that G-d was in control of evolution. In other words, evolution was the creative force G-d used to make speciation. Where ID seeks to interpret science in order to find an explanation that includes G-d, Theistic Evolutionists could care less. They are fine with either direction.
The biggest relationship between Theistic Evolution and ID is some believe (such as myself) that Man was a special Creation temporarily taken out of the Evolution loop for spiritual transformation. Adam and Eve were the first Children of G-d, where the others were of different spiritual status.
[ July 13, 2008, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You were wrong about the timing of his stance, Tom.
I note that your quibble here is on the timing. *grin*
quote:Theistic evolution doesn't require the existence of actual gaps.
Unless you're going the full-bore deist route, at which point there's really nothing theist about your evolution except insofar as you think there's something theist about the universe, it presumes a certain lack of abiogenesis. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I note that your quibble here is on the timing. *grin*
The timing was provided by you. I thought you were clearly referring to this article, which that timing you provided pointed to.
If you weren't, a simple link can clear up the confusion.
quote:Unless you're going the full-bore deist route, at which point there's really nothing theist about your evolution except insofar as you think there's something theist about the universe, it presumes a certain lack of abiogenesis.
That's not true. For example, God tipping the dice to create particular mutations at particular times, knowing the results beforehand, would not require gaps.
This is a commonly accepted type of "Theistic Evolution."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I thought you were clearly referring to this article, which that timing you provided pointed to.
Ah, no. I'm actually thinking back to the last signing I went to, about three or so years ago. His first article on Behe should still be around, though; I'll look for it when I get a second.
quote:God tipping the dice to create particular mutations at particular times, knowing the results beforehand, would not require gaps.
I'm not sure what the practical difference between this and the "full-bore deist" approach really boils down to -- to the outside observer, at least.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure what the practical difference between this and the "full-bore deist" approach really boils down to -- to the outside observer, at least.
To an outside observer who can see the dice-tipping? Presumably it would mean a lot.
If you mean an inside observer, as in someone inside the natural world, then no, there wouldn't be a practical difference scientifically. It would, of course, have enormous import about other things in life.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Only so that he can later draw a parallel to an implied serious problem with the "bad science" of "Darwinism."
Regardless of his reason, in that article he states that ID shouldn't be taught in schools and an indication that ID is, at least in part, wrong.
I think OSC is an evolutionist much the way he is a Democrat.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Here's an article where he discusses Behe's work. He stops short of advocating that ID be taught in the classroom. Rather, he launches into a long (flawed, IMO) critique of people who embrace evolution.
He does seem to be trying to level the playing field for ID and evolution to some extent - but I think his intent is not to stop the teaching of evolution but to weaken the certainty with which evolution is taught. I can see how others might read in some support for ID though.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From that same article OSC writes:
quote:Meanwhile ... what do I believe about the origin of life? I believe that God created it, employing and obeying natural laws, but at levels beyond our understanding. I believe we're here on this earth for God's beneficent purposes.
From the context of the article, i.e. Evolution was used as a tool by G-d, but Evolutionists know less about the Evolutionary/Creative process than they think or demand they do. He does skirt the line of ID thinking, but only those who don't understand Judeo-Christian theology think there is no "gap" in the differences.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting that his "ID is wrong" position is a new one for him (in print, at least); he was an ardent promoter of Behe a few years ago.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)