Thoughts in a Haystack: Nope, Damn It, No!

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Nope, Damn It, No!

As anyone who has read this blog knows, I am sympathetic to religious people who accept science. But now, Darrel Falk, of the BioLogos Foundation, is over at what Stephen Matheson, himself a Christian, calls "The Cesspool" ... otherwise known as Uncommon Descent ... trying to reach a rapprochement. In response to a post by "Johnnyb" entitled "A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement," Falk says:

There are few things that we [the BioLogos Foundation] would like more than this. Johnnyb is right. We are almost on the same page in so many respects. Many of the leaders in evolutionary creation have been tangentially associated with the ID movement. Bill Dembksi asked me to be an ISCID Fellow and I accepted almost 10 years ago. About 4 years ago, I asked to have my name removed.

I recently attended a meeting with a small group of leaders of the TE/EC perspective. Someone asked for a show of hands of those who attended the "Mere Christianity" conference in 1996 at Biola. Several raised their hands.

So why did we become disillusioned? That's the question I'll leave unanswered right now. However, my prayer would be that John 17 will yet become a reality given that we have so much in common.

Are the Biologos Foundation people on the same page with liars? Are they willing to mislead children about science? If they are, I want no more truck with them than I would with the Discovery Institute or The Cesspool.
.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 8:29 AM

Comments:

When BioLogos started, I thought they were trying to be a voice for principled compatibilism, an intellectually respectable theistic alternative to IDism and classic creationism (whether you or I or Larry would agree that that goal is acheivable is a separate question). But the last couple of weeks has brought us what looks like a complete meltdown of that position.

Seriously, dudes -- Albert Mohler? Hobnobbing with the UDists?

# posted by

Eamon Knight : 10:25 AM

There is now a response from "Karl" (I presume that's Karl Giberson) to Mohler at Biologos:

http://www.biologos.org/blog/how-should-biologos-respond-to-dr-albert-mohlers-critique-karls-response

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:46 AM

When BioLogos started, I thought they were trying to be a voice for principled compatibilism,

Ah, maybe you should have went and looked at their web page. (It has a bunch of kook articles written by a bunch of kooks.)

# posted by

386sx : 11:50 AM

There is now a response from "Karl" (I presume that's Karl Giberson) to Mohler at Biologos.

Yeah, they smack around the YECs pretty good but the YECs are no longer any great threat. "Creation science" has been recognized by SCOTUS as religion, so we can keep it out of public schools. We will always have the poor (of intellect) among us who willing to make fools of themselves over YEC but we can limit the damage.

ID ia another matter. Not only do YECs and OECs (and every sort of creationist) use it for cover, there is a strong temptation for judges to use it as a "cultural signal" ... where they'd be unwilling to take on the "crazy" of YEC, they might be tempted to let ID slide (much as the DI expected Judge Jones to do) in order to garner far right support.

IOW, it is more important to be straightforwardly and unequivocally against ID than it is to be against YEC. If BioLogos is unwilling to do that, then they can no longer be thought of as being on the side of science.

# posted by

John Pieret : 1:05 PM

IOW, it is more important to be straightforwardly and unequivocally against ID than it is to be against YEC. If BioLogos is unwilling to do that, then they can no longer be thought of as being on the side of science.

I agree with the thrust of your argument but would nuance it considerably. IMO, the idea of design or a Designer is just a religious/philosophical view that should be treated like any other. Theists or others who portray the cosmos as "designed," no matter what that means to them, should not draw opposition - on that basis alone - from anyone. The problem with the ID movement is not its preference for – or hunger for, or need for – intelligent design. The problem is its preference and need for dishonesty.

And this is exactly what BioLogos should be talking about when confronting criticism from its opponents. If a fundie wants to assert Last Thursdayism, fine, BioLogos need only note that its view is completely different. If another fundie wants to assert that the Bible teaches that the earth is 6000 years old, fine, BioLogos need only note that its view is completely different. If another fundie wants to establish his position as superior by lying about science, BioLogos should take a position that's straightforward and unequivocal.

To see how the masses might respond to that, look at the explosive reaction (by a mostly reasonable fellow code-named Bilbo) to my assessment of Mike Behe in a comment on the very thread that triggered the note on "rapprochement."

# posted by

Stephen Matheson : 2:36 PM

Hi Steve and welcome to my (very humble) web-abode.

I agree that there is no need for BioLogos to beat up the ordinary believer in design. After all these years, "ID" has probably, more or less by reflex, come to mean "the Discovery Institute and its minions" to me. And despite what Bilbo and other ordinary design fans may think, I hope you keep pointing out the DI's dishonesty. It is, I think, a great service to science and society.

And I also hope that BioLogos' attempt at rapprochement doesn't mean that they will overlook that dishonesty any more than you do.

# posted by

John Pieret : 4:38 PM

John, you wrote

And I also hope that BioLogos' attempt at rapprochement doesn't mean that they will overlook that dishonesty any more than you do.

I'm not encouraged by Falk's invitation to UD folks to rewrite the definition of "Intelligent Design" on the BioLogos site.

# posted by

RBH : 9:09 PM

I'm not encouraged by Falk's invitation to UD folks to rewrite the definition of "Intelligent Design" on the BioLogos site.

Yeah, I saw that too but it's not like the DI isn't gonna do it anyway. In a best case scenerio, BioLogos is just fishing for some stupid rewrite by the IDers.

We can hope anyway.

# posted by

John Pieret : 9:58 PM