Biologos

[Confused]

Just finished Francis S Collins book "The Language of God". As most of you know, he is a very respected scientist who heads the Human Genome Project and also happens to belong to the group of theistic scientists found on www.asa3.org.

In it, he explains the genetic coding and how the entire population can be linked to a group of 10,000 descendants approx 150,000 years ago. He shows all the fossilezed evidence to support evolution as well as the gentic evidence. Fossilized: best example of Macroevolution is the Stickleback fish as it moved from salt water to fresh water environments after the last ice age. They originally had a continuous row of 3 dozen armored plates to protect themselves from predators in saltwater. Now, with less predators in the freshwater environment, these fish have lost most of their plates. For microevolution, we see how the beak of a finch might change shape over time depending on the food source. But the biggest blow that Dawkins loves to play is that evolution can't explain the irreducible complexity of life. Such as the cascading effects of clotting factors. If you miss one step, the entire process fails. His claim is that because of this, unless one can show biological systems that are very complex and integrated, such as bacterial flagella could be formed by gradual Darwinian progress, then evolution can't explain the origin nor diversity of life. The poster child for Dawkins has been the Bacterial flagellum. The argument is the flagellum had no prior useful function so it couldn't have been created in a step wise fashion: Truth: recent research shows that sevreal components of the flagellum are related to an entirely differenct apparatus used by certain bacteria to inject toxins into other bacteria they are attacking (K R Miller "the Flagellum Unspun" in Dembski and Ruse , Debating Design pgs 81-97)

So we have irrefutable evidence of both macro and mircro evolution. Collins rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design (on the basis that it relies so much on the God of Gaps that science seems to be making a mockery of with every new discovery). Instead he proposes Biologos.

He says let science answer the questions it was meant to answer and religion answer the questions it was meant to answer. The central tenets:
1) Universe came into being out of nothingness, ~14 billion years ago.
2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life
3) While the mechanism of origin of life is unkown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and comlexity over very long periods of time
4) Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5) Humans are part of this process, sharing common ancestry with the great apes.
6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explaination and point to our spiritual nature (to include the existence of moral law and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

So the questions for debate:

In light of all the discoveries made by science can science and religion coexist and compliment each other under this Biologos?

Is it possible that the bridge between science and relgion has finally been defined and merged when Collins says that science should answer the natural and allow God to answer the supernatural?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets.

Intelligent Design Defined.

[Confused]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets.

Intelligent Design Defined.

The problem is that really isn't what it is defined as now. It appears to have evolved in many ways. While it still upholds the belief that an intelligent designer made the universe it has evolved to saying that this same ID is the force behind evolution and that he has nurtured the process along here and there. After the massive blow it took in the Dover case, which by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

Settlement of the legal fees

On February 21, 2006, the Dover Area School Board voted, unanimously with one abstention, to pay $1,000,011 in legal fees and damages resulting from the verdict in the case, a large sum of money for a small district. The school board had been offered the opportunity to rescind its policy, and avoid paying legal fees, immediately after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but it declined. [17] Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United, said of the trial's cost, "Any board thinking of trying to do what the Dover board did is going to have to look for a bill in excess of $2 million," and "I think $2 million is a lot to explain to taxpayers for a lawsuit that should never be fought."

Yet the Discovery Institute who helped fund the original case to get the book Of Pandas and People taught in public schools under the guise of science as an intelligent design theory isn't offering to help with this cost. Instead it released the following:

Responses
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. […]
Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.” [12].

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer."[13] [14] [15] [16]

[otseng]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets.

Intelligent Design Defined.

I was composing one at the same time. Here's another list.

[Confused]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets.

Intelligent Design Defined.

I was composing one at the same time. Here's another list.

So the only commonality amongst all the definitions you provided is the central tenet that life didn't just evolve through natural selection or adaptation, instead it had a gentle hand guiding it along.

[otseng]

So the only commonality amongst all the definitions you provided is the central tenet that life didn't just evolve through natural selection or adaptation, instead it had a gentle hand guiding it along.

The commonality is an intelligent cause for things observed in the natural world. It is not limited to critiquing evolutionary theory. But it also delves into physics, cosmology, astrobiology, and others. Plus, some don't even touch evolution. As Beckwith states, "thus do not challenge any theory of biological evolution".

I do not see any consensus in ID about a designer guiding evolution along. As a matter of fact, I haven't come across many IDers who state this.

[QED]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets.

Intelligent Design Defined.

I was composing one at the same time. Here's another list.

So the only commonality amongst all the definitions you provided is the central tenet that life didn't just evolve through natural selection or adaptation, instead it had a gentle hand guiding it along.

Proponents of ID believe that life in general (and often, humans in particular) are the product of willful intent. I don't think there can be any scope for the inclusion of chance or blind forces in their thinking. Apart from the stories we have inherited from mythological times the only other reason I can think of for seeing things this way is by analogy with our own propensity for willful creation. While analogies can be compelling they always need to be supported by a more tangible link.

We tend to look for a principle to explain phenomena -- and the principle of human will acting through human hands to create things is too obvious to miss. But the Theory of Evolution presents another principle by which things may be created. I'm not for restricting natural selection to biology as, seeing as how it is a general principle, it can be applied elsewhere and is (I think) a little easier to see in action. It certainly is a principle from which "intelligent looking" design decisions can emerge. This much is easy to demonstrate.

So, it's not correct to state that willful intelligence is necessary for the appearance of design in things as some seem to assert. Incidentally, I keep saying that ID is sufficient but not necessary. I doubt if there's a single "evolutionist" who would rule out the initiation of life-giving chemistry by some other form of intelligent life. It's always got to be a possibility even if very remote.

[Confused]

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets.

Intelligent Design Defined.

I was composing one at the same time. Here's another list.

So the only commonality amongst all the definitions you provided is the central tenet that life didn't just evolve through natural selection or adaptation, instead it had a gentle hand guiding it along.

Proponents of ID believe that life in general (and often, humans in particular) are the product of willful intent. I don't think there can be any scope for the inclusion of chance or blind forces in their thinking. Apart from the stories we have inherited from mythological times the only other reason I can think of for seeing things this way is by analogy with our own propensity for willful creation. While analogies can be compelling they always need to be supported by a more tangible link.

We tend to look for a principle to explain phenomena -- and the principle of human will acting through human hands to create things is too obvious to miss. But the Theory of Evolution presents another principle by which things may be created. I'm not for restricting natural selection to biology as, seeing as how it is a general principle, it can be applied elsewhere and is (I think) a little easier to see in action. It certainly is a principle from which "intelligent looking" design decisions can emerge. This much is easy to demonstrate.

So, it's not correct to state that willful intelligence is necessary for the appearance of design in things as some seem to assert. Incidentally, I keep saying that ID is sufficient but not necessary. I doubt if there's a single "evolutionist" who would rule out the initiation of life-giving chemistry by some other form of intelligent life. It's always got to be a possibility even if very remote.

I agree but I can also see how intelligent design could be a component of evolution itself in that if you go down to the basic structure of the organism, it genetic coding. Looking at bacteria and how they recontruct their basic structures and metabolism to develop resistance to antibiotics, higher organisms use their genetic code to adapt to the environment to give them the best chance for survival. A genetic mutation that is done very slow over time, such as what may have been the purpose of the now "junk" ARE's genetic coding, could allow that organism to adapt and as the organism becomes functional to the new environment it retains the new genetic code and the "evolving" genetic code that was used in the process is what we call ARE's now. But I still see this as an active form of adaptation. Those organisms who can adapt the quickest will be the organisms most likely to survive in the new environment.

Ever seen the move "Absolute Zero"? It is about global warming causing a shift in the poles so that essentially all the tropical zones, etc become the antarctic and vice versa. Another ice age. Those species that had the ability to adapt to their environment or at least the intelligence to use technology to assist them in getting to a warmer climate would be most likely to survive. Those species that could not adapt or sat around and hoped the weather would change tomorrow would be the least likely to survive. So I can see intelligent design in these examples, but that is intelligent design of the organism itself, not of a creator of the entire species. All species have a weaker link component. There is no species that has equal intelligence amongst all its members. So even the organisms with the potential to adapt may not. There is still a good chance that some of that species will die regardless.

[QED]

So, it's not correct to state that willful intelligence is necessary for the appearance of design in things as some seem to assert. Incidentally, I keep saying that ID is sufficient but not necessary. I doubt if there's a single "evolutionist" who would rule out the initiation of life-giving chemistry by some other form of intelligent life. It's always got to be a possibility even if very remote.

I agree but I can also see how intelligent design could be a component of evolution itself in that if you go down to the basic structure of the organism, it genetic coding. Looking at bacteria and how they recontruct their basic structures and metabolism to develop resistance to antibiotics, higher organisms use their genetic code to adapt to the environment to give them the best chance for survival. A genetic mutation that is done very slow over time, such as what may have been the purpose of the now "junk" ARE's genetic coding, could allow that organism to adapt and as the organism becomes functional to the new environment it retains the new genetic code and the "evolving" genetic code that was used in the process is what we call ARE's now. But I still see this as an active form of adaptation. Those organisms who can adapt the quickest will be the organisms most likely to survive in the new environment.

The "trick" of life reminds me of a retired professor I know who based his entire career on a single "trick" he came up with for his PhD Thesis. It was a good one alright and it carried him far and wide. But his closest colleagues (with no sour grapes) rightly observed that after all he had still only invented one thing.

This is an example of independence that I feel people tied to the notion of ID miss in things. The DNA in a bacterium, mouse, man or tree speaks of a single trick that liberates atoms into an independent form of existence. A new career if you like.

But if we look the other way through the telescope, instead of seeing the magnification of this trick (the entire biosphere), we see instead the essence -- the doctoral thesis that started-off the career and we can better contemplate the chance or skill by which it came about -- without the considerable distractions of all the glamorous history that followed.

[Confused]

So, it's not correct to state that willful intelligence is necessary for the appearance of design in things as some seem to assert. Incidentally, I keep saying that ID is sufficient but not necessary. I doubt if there's a single "evolutionist" who would rule out the initiation of life-giving chemistry by some other form of intelligent life. It's always got to be a possibility even if very remote.

I agree but I can also see how intelligent design could be a component of evolution itself in that if you go down to the basic structure of the organism, it genetic coding. Looking at bacteria and how they recontruct their basic structures and metabolism to develop resistance to antibiotics, higher organisms use their genetic code to adapt to the environment to give them the best chance for survival. A genetic mutation that is done very slow over time, such as what may have been the purpose of the now "junk" ARE's genetic coding, could allow that organism to adapt and as the organism becomes functional to the new environment it retains the new genetic code and the "evolving" genetic code that was used in the process is what we call ARE's now. But I still see this as an active form of adaptation. Those organisms who can adapt the quickest will be the organisms most likely to survive in the new environment.

The "trick" of life reminds me of a retired professor I know who based his entire career on a single "trick" he came up with for his PhD Thesis. It was a good one alright and it carried him far and wide. But his closest colleagues (with no sour grapes) rightly observed that after all he had still only invented one thing.

This is an example of independence that I feel people tied to the notion of ID miss in things. The DNA in a bacterium, mouse, man or tree speaks of a single trick that liberates atoms into an independent form of existence. A new career if you like.

But if we look the other way through the telescope, instead of seeing the magnification of this trick (the entire biosphere), we see instead the essence -- the doctoral thesis that started-off the career and we can better contemplate the chance or skill by which it came about -- without the considerable distractions of all the glamorous history that followed.

What a perfect analogy.

[Cathar1950]

The DNA in a bacterium, mouse, man or tree speaks of a single trick that liberates atoms into an independent form of existence. A new career if you like.

Thanks QED, I have been looking for a way to say that.
I like to think of most life forms we know today as that trick after many millions and maybe billions of years of changes as they try to replicate themselves.
Most don't make it but the ones that do stand out and look like the universe was fit to order when actually they fit the universe.
I just got “Nature's Destiny” and I must remember to continue this line of thought in the thread. But what I noticed was that Denton has it backwards.
It is not that the Universe is finely tuned to promote life but life has been finely tuned to the universe by accidental or contingent means. I like the idea of an enfolding or is it infolding, universe where everything is related and connected. What makes a subatomic particle what it is, is its relationship to other subatomic particles, which is related to everything else. I could use a little help here with this concept I am trying to grasp.