Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

51 Comments

  1. Miguel de Servet
    February 7, 2015 @ 8:52 am

    While Paul certainly affirmed that “death came through a man” (1 Cor 15:21) and that “sin entered the world through one man and death through sin” (Rom 5:12), Paul NEVER affirmed that humans became “corrupted” because of Adam’s sin.

    Reply

    • Elisha Rodriguez
      February 7, 2015 @ 12:19 pm

      Psalm 51:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
      And in sin my mother conceived me.

      Reply

    • Elisha Rodriguez
      February 7, 2015 @ 12:21 pm

      Genesis 5:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he [a]became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

      In his own image not GODs image anymore

      Reply

      • Rivers
        February 7, 2015 @ 1:34 pm

        Eliseo,

        According scripture, all “men” were “in the image of God” (Genesis 9:6). Why would you think it was any different with Seth?

        Reply

        • Elisha Rodriguez
          February 7, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

          What does the bible say? He did not make after GODs image but his own.
          Can a fallen sinful person make a holy person like GOD and not after his own image? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will [m]know them by their fruits.

          Reply

          • Rivers
            February 8, 2015 @ 8:59 am

            Eliseo,

            What do you think “the image of God” meant in scripture?

            Reply

        • Elisha Rodriguez
          February 7, 2015 @ 1:54 pm

          It mentions how GOD made us, not in what state we are in before Christ. How he made us and the way were (Humans) rebel against GOD is not part of GODs image, murder, and all the evil Humans do is not the image of GOD. GOD made us sinless and pure and we fell we no longer reflect GOD, and sinful man can only reproduce sinful.

          Reply

          • Rivers
            February 8, 2015 @ 9:03 am

            Eliseo,

            If you think that “the image of God” meant being “sinless” then how do you explain the distinction between “the image and glory of God” and “the glory of the man” that Paul draws between the Christian men and woman in the churches (1 Corinthians 11:8-10)?

            Do you think Eve was not created “sinless” because Paul considered the women to be only “the glory of the man”? Why do you think Paul was telling the women in Corinth to have their heads covered based upon Genesis 1:26?

            Reply

    • Rivers
      February 7, 2015 @ 1:32 pm

      Mario,

      Where do you see Paul making a distinction between “sin” and “corruption”? What are you thinking is the difference between those two words?

      Reply

  2. Rivers
    February 5, 2015 @ 6:57 pm

    Dale,

    I listened to the interesting discussion about Adam and Eve on this podcast. I’m glad that the moderators want to retain the (obvious) biblical teaching that Adam and Eve were ordinary human beings created by God about 4,000 BC. If that wasn’t the case, then none of the biblical genealogies (inclusive of Jesus himself) would make any sense.

    However, I think the same moderators also make the “problem” of Adam and Eve too complicated. The issue for faith and science is not the data in scripture. Rather, it is a misunderstanding of the very limited geophysical scope of the language in the Creation narrative.

    For example, the ancient Hebrew writer explicitly defined “heaven” as the “sky” (Genesis 1:8) and “earth” as “the dry ground” (Genesis 1:10). He also identified “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4) with a very specific geographic region already known to his ancient readers (Genesis 2:8-14).

    Thus, there is no reason to try to force anything in the Genesis creation story to answer questions posed by the modern physical sciences or the pseudo-science of mathematics. It was nothing more than the story of the origin of the ancestors of Abraham and the place where they lived.

    Reply

  3. Rivers
    February 5, 2015 @ 8:57 am

    Dale,

    I haven’t had the chance to listen to this podcast yet, but I’m wondering why anyone would think that the story of Adam and Eve could possibly account for mitochondria or chromosomes when there’s no indication that the ancient Hebrews understood anything about those things.

    Reply

    • Dale Tuggy
      February 5, 2015 @ 6:56 pm

      What he’s concerned with is that some present-day scientists think that genetics shows that the human race was never down to two people. These are arguments not about the original meaning of Genesis 1, but rather, against the literal truth of Genesis 1.

      Reply

      • Roman
        February 6, 2015 @ 7:44 am

        Woudn’t a historical Adam and Eve be required for the Pauline argument in Romans 5:12 to work? At least for a traditional western interpretation, is there another way to understand it? I don’t know the eastern theology of the fall, and how that would work with a non historical Adam and Eve.

        Reply

        • Sean Garrigan
          February 6, 2015 @ 8:53 pm

          Yes, an historical Adam is at the very heart of Paul’s salvation doctrine. If he was wrong about that, then on what basis do we assume that he was correct about the half that we hope for?

          Reply

          • Rivers
            February 6, 2015 @ 10:11 pm

            Sean,

            That’s right.

            Reply

        • Rivers
          February 6, 2015 @ 10:09 pm

          Hi Roman,

          I agree that the historical Adam is essential to Paul’s argument because that is where biological death originated (as far as he is concerned, Genesis 3:19; Genesis 5:5; Romans 5:12).

          However, in the context of Romans 4-5, Paul is specifically referring only to the descendants of Abraham from the womb of Sarah (Romans 4:1, 16-18) who had come to be accountable to the Law of Moses (Romans 3:19-20; Romans 5:13).

          Reply

        • Sean Garrigan
          February 8, 2015 @ 8:27 am

          Many Christians, but especially liberal and “progressive” ones, often criticize those of us who don’t buy the Darwinian party line. Indeed, James F. McGrath, who has a blog called “Exploring Our Matrix,” even went so far as to call me a worshiper of Satan for rejecting the absurd notion that the myriad structures in life that exhibit a patently purposeful arrangement of exquisitely coordinated parts are the product of undirected physical processes. Of course, even his charge against me is rather silly, as he doesn’t believe in a literal Satan, but that’s another discussion.

          I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve heard such folks declare that one can “believe in evolution” and still be a Christian. However, what they often fail to tell you is that the “Christianity” that one has left to embrace when one also embraces Darwinism (along with other “progressive” ideas) doesn’t look anything like biblical Christianity.

          If the modern theory of evolution is true, then there was no first human pair; rather, there was an original population of about 30 thousand individuals (if memory serves). Moreover, the notion that all the pain and suffering in the world is the result of mankind’s disobedience would also be untrue. On the evolutionary model of human origins, pain, suffering, and death are merely the natural byproducts of life in the natural world.

          McGrath likes to argue that the God of the Creationist or of the Intelligent Design advocate is less powerful than his Darwinian God, because his Darwinian God is so powerful that he can “make things make themselves,” whereas my God had to have a real hand in the processes.

          Ironically, if “progressive” Christians were to be consistent, and if they took their own arguments seriously, then they’d praise God for the pain, suffering, and death that we see all around us, because that pain, suffering, and death are natural, even necessary outgrowths of the God-makes-things-make-themselves process. If that process testifies to the greater glory of a more awesome God, then the natural outgrowths of that process do as well. Instead they take the inconsistent approach of attempting to use pain, suffering, and death as evidence *against* accepting Intelligent Design. Well, “progressive” Christians may make good Zeitgeistians, but I think they make terrible philosophers.

          Reply

          • Miguel de Servet
            February 8, 2015 @ 8:46 am

            What sort of Christian is Francis Collins, then?

            Reply

            • Sean Garrigan
              February 8, 2015 @ 8:57 am

              A confused one?

              Reply

              • Miguel de Servet
                February 8, 2015 @ 9:01 am

                Fair enough. How about, one one who wants to have his cake, and eat it too?

                Reply

                • Sean Garrigan
                  February 8, 2015 @ 3:37 pm

                  Yeah, that’ll work. One of the problems I have with Christians who argue that we should all accept the “fact” of Darwinism vis a vis its larger claims is that it’s founded upon accepting a starting point that I find inconsistent with Christian belief. Scientists rule out inference to intelligent causation in biology because they assume that an inference to intelligent causation is ipso facto an inference to supernatural causation, which is forbidden. While such inferences may be forbidden in science, there’s no reason that they should be forbidden for Christians.

                  Ironically, the argument that Darwinism is the best scientific explanation for the origin of the species is ultimately circular. Since scientists rule out inference to intelligent causation in biology as a governing principle of science, they therefore can only reach conclusions that are in harmony with methodological naturalism. Since Darwinism is really the only game in town that folks think can plausibly account for large scale evolutionary change, the fact that it’s the best scientific explanation is pretty empty.

                  As Alvin Platinga has pointed out, if God did have an active hand in bringing about the various life forms, then scientists would be forever precluded from apprehending that truth *as scientists*.

                  “What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing science in accord
                  with methodological naturalism? There is a good deal to be said on both
                  sides here. For example, if you exclude the supernatural from science,
                  then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused —
                  as most of the world’s people believe — you won’t be able to reach that
                  truth scientifically.

                  Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world. It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions.”

                  Found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/3331

                  Reply

                  • Miguel de Servet
                    February 9, 2015 @ 4:26 am

                    I hold quite a different view of the relatioship between methodological naturalism and natural science. It is effectively summed up by “Rule No. 1”, here:

                    Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:

                    Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

                    Operational science takes no position about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural; only that this factor is not to be invoked in scientific explanations. Calling down special-purpose miracles as explanations constitutes a form of intellectual “cheating.” (Richard E. Dickerson, “The Game of Science: Reflections After Arguing With Some Rather Overwrought People”, from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 44, June 1992, pp. 137-138)

                    Reply

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 9, 2015 @ 9:16 pm

                      Well, I don’t really have a problem with that. The problem, IMO, isn’t the commitment of most scientists to conduct their inquiry within the confines of methodological naturalism; rather, the problem is that they take it a step further and suggest that all questions about how life emerged and diversified should be and will be answered within such governing constraints. Once you’ve taken that additional step, your methodological naturalism becomes indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism, and I see no Scriptural basis for endorsing such an approach.

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 10, 2015 @ 4:00 am

                      Agreed. Personally, I am in favor of ID, but ONLY as a philosophical proposition. ID will NEVER be science because the recourse to the “Intelligent Agent” is the very negation of Rule No. 1.

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 10, 2015 @ 6:57 am

                      I could live with that, though I would probably place Darwinism into the same category of a philosophical proposition, as there doesn’t seem to be much of “science” with the theory. Scientists can’t tell us what mutations and selections caused any living creature to emerge in its modern form, nor can they tell us what mutations and selections will occur in the future, and what life forms will be like as a result. It seems to form more of a philosophical context than a testable/falsifiable science. People have asserted that it’s testable and falsifiable, but the fact that it can and has been made to accommodate any and all data, even contradictory data, makes me wonder if that’s true. I think, probably not. As Philip Skell noted:

                      “Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except
                      when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection
                      produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it
                      prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an
                      explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is
                      difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for
                      scientific discovery.”

                      http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

                      ~Sean

                      “All I’ve studied and researched over
                      the past 30 years has only strengthened my belief that nothing makes
                      sense in biology apart from belief in an intelligent being who has
                      created us. Those who do not believe in an intelligent being must go
                      to great extents to rationalize that what they see as design is not
                      the product of intelligence.” — Dr. Donald L. Ewert,
                      Microbiologist, researcher at the Wistar Institute for almost 20
                      years

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 10, 2015 @ 9:55 am

                      Let’s be specific and precise, shall we? What you call, generically, “Darwinism” is not what Charles Darwin proposed back in 1859, but, in the meantime, had to incorporate (among other) Genetics and Biochemistry (DNA, RNA and the Genetic Code, in particular). Anyway, we can still formulate the essence of the (scientific) ToE as “Evolution through Random Mutation and Natural Selection”. Following Karl Popper, and keeping it drastically simple, there are two essential requirements for a theory to qualify as scientific: 1. that it is Empirical and 2. that it is Falsifiable. So, as it satisfies both a.m. requirements, ToE certainly is scientific. Next question is: has it been falsified? The answer (at least to my knowledge) is: NO. The next question is: has it ever been corroborated by experiment (or, more in general, empirical evidence)? To my knowledge, the corroborationg evidence is embarrassingly scant. In fact, AFAIK, the ONLY experiment worthy of mention, is the E. coli long-term evolution experiment which, after over 30 years and over 30,000 generations, saw the evolution of a “variant” of E. coli (Cit+) capable to feed on Citrate (rather than the normal Glucose) in aerobic environment.

                      OTOH, I believe that no satisfactory “evolutionary path” has ever been suggested by the advocates of ToE for what ID advocates call examples of “Irreducible Complexity” (e.g. bacterial flagella, blood clotting cascade, vertebrate immune system, etc.)

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 10, 2015 @ 9:25 pm

                      “Let’s be specific and precise, shall we? What you call, generically,
                      “Darwinism” is not what Charles Darwin proposed back in 1859, but, in
                      the meantime, had to incorporate (among other) Genetics and Biochemistry
                      (DNA, RNA and the Genetic Code, in particular).”

                      Yeah, I know, Mario. I use “Darwinism” generically as a sort of shorthand — like myriad other people who engage in these sorts of discussions on a regular basis — to refer to the theory in its modern form.

                      I was wondering how long you’d be able to keep your condescending, didactic side in check, and I have my answer: Two posts:-(

                      ~Sean

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 11, 2015 @ 2:48 am

                      I am glad to see that you were already aware of all the information I provided in my comment. Then you agree (at least implicitly) with me that, in spite of all its limitations, ToE is 1. scientific and 2. NOT falsified. Good. 🙂

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 11, 2015 @ 6:34 am

                      As I said, I question whether Darwinism is scientific in any meaningful way, and it certainly seems non-falsifiable. As Skell observed, it can accommodate A and non-A at the same time, which would seem to make it essentially valueless. It’s a higgledy-piggledy theory of que sera sera, and the reason it has survived this long as the answer to large scale change is (a) because it’s the only game in town that most scientists believe can plausibly account for such diversification, and (b) because scientists refuse to respect their own limitations. The public has deified science, and scientists are happy to accept the honor. They’d rather perpetuate their own divinity and continue believing that design and purpose are illusions than honestly acknowledge that they just don’t know from a materialistic perspective how the myriad life forms diversified.

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 11, 2015 @ 9:38 am

                      In spite of what Mr. Skell may say, ToE is falsifiable. Darwin himself formulated the relative criterion, which is still the best formulation so far:

                      “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. (On the Origin of Species, London, John Murray, p. 189, Chapter VI)”

                      Of course, one may contend that the examples of “Irreducible Complexity” (that I have partly indicated) are such cases. Let’s say that, so far, they are only a limited number of examples. If they become indisputable and grow in number, they will eventually topple ToE as is.

                      Once again, what you seem reluctant to accept (even if you seem to understand the principle) is that EITHER Rule No.1 (viz. methodological naturalism) applies to Natural Science, OR there is no such thing as … Natural Science, because (paraphrasing Cole Porter) it would happen that “anything goes”.

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 11, 2015 @ 7:29 pm

                      I think that Darwinism belongs in philosophy class, not in science class, though in the end I’d rather just follow the evidence wherever it leads, and leave the wrangling over what is and isn’t “science” to the scientific community. By refusing to infer intelligent causation as a matter of methodological principle, scientists have removed themselves from meaningful dialogue vis a vis how life forms really emerged, and I choose to honor that choice. They’ve made themselves irrelevant to the question, and I accept their irrelevance.

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 12, 2015 @ 5:34 am

                      Once again (hopefully for the last time) EITHER Natural Science accepts the limit of methodological naturalism OR it is no science at all, because … “anything goes”. Those who refuse this limit simply want to … have their cake and eat it too …

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 12, 2015 @ 6:52 am

                      Once again — hopefully for the last time — that is not relevant to the question at hand, namely, how did life emerge and diversify?

                      Since science has chosen, for good or for ill, to limit its inquiry to purely natural processes while disallowing inference to intelligent causation under the assumption that it would ipso facto amount to supernatural causation, and since life emerged and diversified with the help of intelligent causation, then it follows that science has chosen to render itself irrelevant to the question at hand, and I therefore chose to honor their decision and accept their irrelevance.

                      ~Sean

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 12, 2015 @ 6:56 am

                      Enjoy your conceitedly confused ideas about science …

                      P.S. I wont bother with further “replies” from you.

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 12, 2015 @ 7:10 am

                      There’s the Mario I know.

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 13, 2015 @ 7:19 am

                      “Enjoy your conceitedly confused ideas about science ..”

                      I thought I’d point out to folks here why this peevish comment is mistaken on both counts, i.e. I’ve neither offered “conceit” nor shown myself to be “confused” about science and Darwinism.

                      Let’s start with the second assertion, my asserted “confusion.” Mario and I both agree about what natural science is, as agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists forming a consensus, and as practiced by them. Wikipedia, despite its glaring faults, describes methodological naturalism well with these words:

                      “Methodological naturalism concerns itself not with claims about what
                      exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the
                      idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be
                      explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.”

                      That aptly describes in a broad way what science is about. No confusion there, and Mario and I both agree that this is modern science. Moreover, I had pointed out that my problem with modern science as practiced isn’t that scientists limit themselves to seeking natural causes, but that they take it a step further. I said:

                      “The problem, IMO, isn’t the commitment of most scientists to conduct
                      their inquiry within the confines of methodological naturalism; rather,
                      the problem is that they take it a step further and suggest that all
                      questions about how life emerged and diversified should be and will be
                      answered within such governing constraints. Once you’ve taken that
                      additional step, your methodological naturalism becomes
                      indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism, and I see no Scriptural
                      basis for endorsing such an approach.”

                      What was Mario’s reply to this? Here it is:

                      “Agreed. Personally, I am in favor of ID, but ONLY as a philosophical
                      proposition. ID will NEVER be science because the recourse to the
                      “Intelligent Agent” is the very negation of Rule No. 1.”

                      So Mario and I both agree about what science is, and we both agree that scientists who take the further step of suggesting that all
                      questions about how life emerged and diversified should be and will be
                      answered within such governing constraints have gone too far.

                      Obviously Mario’s charge of confusion is just another example of the peevishness he so often displays. Yawn.

                      What about my “conceit…”, however? In reality, those who have the ability to analyze my response logically and dispassionately should see that I actually honor modern scientists even more than the folks at the Discovery Institute. How so? Because, unlike the folks at the Discovery Institute, I don’t spend my time arguing with scientists and telling them that they are mistaken by supporting methodological naturalism. I don’t bypass the academy and peer review where my views are largely rejected and take my case to the general (largely ignorant) public to try and convince the masses in an effort to cause a paradigm shift vis a vis what is and isn’t and should and shouldn’t be “science”.

                      Yes, I honor scientists by respecting their decision to proceed according to the parameters they’ve deemed appropriate. However, showing them this honor necessitates that I also honor their irrelevance to the subject of how life originated and diversified. Since purely physical processes can’t account for these phenomena, then it follows that science is precluded from reaching the correct answer to these ultimate questions. As Alvin Pantinga put it:

                      “…if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth scientifically.”

                      In light of its own self-imposed limitations, science can’t reach the whole truth about what caused life to originate and diversify, and there’s no conceit in recognizing this.

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 13, 2015 @ 9:54 am

                      In light of its own self-imposed limitations, science can’t reach the whole truth about what caused life to originate and diversify, and there’s no conceit in recognizing this.

                      Sean

                      First, I take good note that, pace Skell, Ewert, and Plantinga, methodological naturalism is confirmed to be the ONLY agreed, viable method of Natural Science. To use your words, “what science is about”.

                      Second, while sorely lacking in corroborating evidence, ToE is NOT falsified (yet), so your claim that “science can’t reach the whole truth about what caused life to originate and diversify”, while probably true, is certainly NOT confirmed (yet).

                      Third, there are two basic ways in which ID imagines the intervention of an “Intelligent Agent” (actually three considering the basic pre-requisite):

                      0. The eerie “fine tuning” for life of several critical physical constants makes it reasonable that an “Intelligent Agent” has purposefully chosen them, before the “Big Bang”. The only alternative approach of those who reject “fine tuning” (and, at the same time, unlike Stephen J. Gould, refuse to consider that our universe, with its life, humans and their civilizations, is a mere fluke) is the s.c. “multiverse”: our universe would be one of infinite many (even in principle unobservable) “universes”, the overwhelming majority of which would be unfit for life. We would have ended up with the “life number” at the lottery. No need to say that the “multiverse” is a purely dogmatic metaphysical materialistic “theory”, the ONLY reason for which is to deny both the “fluke” theory and the Intelligent Design.

                      1. The “Intelligent Agent”, besides “fine tuning” the Universe for life, might “tweak” it (or “steer” it) at some critical junctions (the correct mathematical term is “bifurcations”).

                      2. Alternatively, the “Intelligent Agent” might have “front loaded” all the critical “turning points” even before the “Big Bang”, so that they play out at the critical points in space and time. If this was the case, even highly critical and apparently “irreducibly complex” events would be, even in principle, indistinguishable from purely random events.

                      Do I need to add that none of the above can be the domain of inquiry of Natural Science?

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 14, 2015 @ 10:44 am

                      Mario,

                      It appears that a few clarifications are in order. You said:

                      “First, I take good note that, pace Skell, Ewert, and Plantinga, methodological naturalism is confirmed to be the ONLY agreed, viable method of Natural Science. To use your words, ‘what science is about’.”

                      I wasn’t actually endorsing the definition of what “science” is, but merely pointing out what it is according to the consensus and practices of most modern scientists. Personally, I’m in agreement with the folks at the Discovery Institute who believe that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Whether there is or should be a demarkation point beyond which our journey leaves the realm of science and enters another realm is of little concern to me. It is the truth at the end of the journey that matters to me, not the appellation we assign to the means by which it is apprehended.

                      “Second, while sorely lacking in corroborating evidence, ToE is NOT falsified (yet), so your claim that “science can’t reach the whole truth about what caused life to originate and diversify”, while probably true, is certainly NOT confirmed (yet).”

                      It depends upon what you mean by “confirmed.” If you mean “confirmed by science,” then that may be true, though it is scarcely relevant from my perspective.

                      “Third, there are two basic ways in which ID imagines the intervention of an “Intelligent Agent” (actually three considering the basic pre-requisite):”

                      [snip]

                      The Intelligent Design community is pretty diverse. Yes, they use the fine-tuning argument (e.g. Gonzalez), and some of them at least tentatively believe in common descent and suggest that God might “tweak” things along the way (e.g. Behe). However, among the members are also young-earth creationists (e.g. Nelson), those whose specific views on what evolution can and has done aren’t so easily pinned down (e.g. Meyer), and those who are agnostic and don’t even advocate ID (e.g. Berlinski). As you say, theistic evolution can be a form of ID, though, as Stephen Meyer has pointed out, some forms may not be (e.g. the view of Francis Collins, potentially).

                      “Do I need to add that none of the above can be the domain of inquiry of Natural Science?”

                      Well, I’ve restricted my comments to what science is according to the consensus and practices of most scientists. I don’t see much point in arguing about what could or should be deemed “scientific,” because in the end it ultimately doesn’t matter vis a vis the subject at hand (i.e. whether there was an original human pair). Whether one chooses to dub ID “science” or not is much less interesting than is the question of whether ID is true. From my perspective it is unavoidably true, and so I don’t have to live my life believing that the design I see all around me with myriad life forms that exhibit a patently purposeful arrangement of exquisitely coordinated parts is an illusion. It’s real, and the designer is real to me.

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 14, 2015 @ 11:10 am

                      Sean,

                      your sentence “That [Wikipedia > Naturalism > Methodological naturalism] aptly describes in a broad way what science is about” can only mean
                      one thing, to any intellectually honest person. (Hint: it is accepted, NOT merely ascribed to the “consensus” of the scientific community …)
                      And how about your “I’m in agreement with the folks at the Discovery Institute who believe that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads” (now), after you had loftily declared, “I actually honor modern scientists even more than the folks at the Discovery Institute” (before)? Seems like you speak out of both sides of your mouth …

                      ID notions like “Irreducible Complexity” or “Specified Complexity” will, at most, falsify some statement of Natural Science: they will NEVER provide some “truth at the end of the journey”, unless you confuse science and scripture, science and faith.

                      And, in spite of the self-reassuring character of
                      your claims that “[f]rom [your] perspective [ID] is unavoidably true” and that “the designer is real to [you]”, I hope you will concede how they are both imbibed with an ineliminably subjective element.

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 14, 2015 @ 11:35 am

                      Mario,

                      “your sentence “That [Wikipedia > Naturalism > Methodological
                      naturalism] aptly describes in a broad way what science is about” can
                      only mean one thing, to any intellectually honest person. (Hint: it is accepted, NOT merely ascribed to the “consensus” of the scientific community …)”

                      You seem to be under some delusion that the Wikipedia’s definition of science is some sort of abstract universal truth. Humans decide what is and isn’t “science,” and what should and shouldn’t be so designated is arrived at by consensus. There is no abstract universal truth called “science,” which is and must only be what Wikipedia says it is in 2015.

                      “And how about your ‘I’m in agreement with the folks at the Discovery
                      Institute who believe that we should follow the evidence wherever it
                      leads’ (now), after you had loftily declared, ‘I actually honor modern
                      scientists even more than the folks at the Discovery Institute’
                      (before)? Seems like you speak out of both sides of your mouth …”

                      Those two statement are not incompatible. I have both agreed with and embraced ID’s conclusions while criticizing its members for their obsession with getting ID dubbed “scientific” for some time. Constantly arguing over whether ID is “scientific” (yawn) distracts from the more important question of whether ID is true.

                      There’s nothing subjective about observing that life forms exhibit patently purposeful arrangements of exquisitely coordinated parts (=design).

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 14, 2015 @ 12:21 pm

                      I thought it might be beneficial to add that it would probably only take one minor tweak in perspective to allow ID to fall under the broad umbrella of “science,” and it could be argued that the tweak is appropriate. ID is deemed “not science” largely because of the following three propositions:

                      1) Science can only infer natural causes;

                      2) An inference to intelligence is equated with an inference to the supernatural;

                      3) Since ID infers intelligence it ipso facto involves inference to the supernatural.

                      All one would need to do is grant that an inference to intelligence isn’t *necessarily* an inference to the supernatural and ID potentially becomes a valid historical science. Interestingly, this is the very approach that those in the forefront of the movement advocate.

                      Now, one could argue that ID still wouldn’t be a valid science because it’s not testable. However, even if that were true, the same could be said in relation to Darwinism vis a vis its larger claims, and few would argue that it isn’t a valid scientific theory because of this shortcoming. It seems to me that most of the tests I’ve heard advocates of Darwinism propose involve failed ways by which Darwinism could have been proven false, not proven ways of demonstrating that Darwinism is true.

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 16, 2015 @ 5:40 am

                      I can only confirm that your views about natural science are confused, at best. And it is quite sweet that you have “both agreed with and embraced ID’s conclusions”, nay, you have chosen to believe that “ID is true” regardless of “whether ID is scientific”. Good for you.

                      BTW, you obviously are enamoured with the word “exquisite” and derivatives …

                      It would be interesting to know (well, not really …) what sort of intelligence could be appealed to, in Cosmology and Biology, other than that of the famous “Intelligent Agent”. Unless, of course, you have in mind … Aliens! Surely even you realize that this simply posits an infinite regress …

                      As for verifiability vs falsifiability, perhaps someone should inform you that NO scientific proposition, hypothesis or theory is, by definition, conclusively verifiable. (Hint: the dual “crisis” of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics would have never happened, otherwise …)

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 16, 2015 @ 7:21 am

                      You are mistaken in your accusation, as I’ve demonstrated. Since you are now simply repeating yourself, I’ll conclude that the conversation has reached its natural end.

                      As for your last paragraph, it’s true that science is supposed to hold to theories tentatively, yet Darwinists have discarded that criterion. Ironic, since Darwinism vis a vis its larger claims is neither verified, as you’ve admitted, nor verifiable (it would seem).

                      No scientist has ever observed the specific mutations and selections that caused an original form of life to undergo change over time and become another form of life. They can’t tell us what mutations and selections occurred in the past to accomplish this miraculous feat, when they occurred, or why they occurred, nor can they tell us what mutations and selections will occur to shape the life of the future. Darwinism is an it-is-what-it-is-and-it-will-be-what-it-will-be all theory. It’s sustained in a manner similar to how the presuppositionalists use TAG to prove the existence of God, except that presuppositionalists argue for the existence of God based on the impossibility of the contrary, whereas Darwinists simply exclude the contrary by methodological fiat.

                      Is it a scientific theory? Perhaps so, but from my perspective it functions more like a philosophy, and often even like a secular religion.

                      ~Sean

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 16, 2015 @ 9:18 am

                      … presuppositionalists argue for the existence of God based on the impossibility of the contrary …

                      LOL!

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 16, 2015 @ 6:18 pm

                      I’ve seen a number of responses to the biblical presuppositional apologetic pioneered by the late Cornelius Van Til, and carried forth by his students and others, e.g. Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Francis Schaeffer, K. Scott Oliphint, etc, but I have never yet seen such a penetrating, well articulated analysis as “LOL!”. My knees shake from your profound wisdom;-)

                      LOL,
                      ~Sean

                    • Miguel de Servet
                      February 17, 2015 @ 3:03 am

                      That’s all they deserve. Enjoy your “presuppositions” …

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 17, 2015 @ 6:48 am

                      At least they offer a well-articulated and largely biblical paradigm in a respectful, responsible, and reasonable way. You, on the other hand, offer absurd ideas that you refuse even attempt to render intelligible (e.g. Jesus is the literal incarnation of LOGOS), and the intellectual equivalence of a child’s spitballs in response to ideas you don’t like.

                    • Sean Garrigan
                      February 18, 2015 @ 6:26 am

                      I should add that your final sentence shows that you don’t understand presuppositional apologetics. I’ll give you a hint how I know this: “your.”

          • Roman
            February 9, 2015 @ 2:58 am

            I suppose though Orthodox Christians “according to Craig” could get rid of the historical Adam and Eve and still have a consistant fall theology, can anyone spell that out?

            Reply

            • Sean Garrigan
              February 9, 2015 @ 9:10 pm

              I’m skeptical, but even if such were possible what you’d end up with wouldn’t be a *biblical* account of the fall. What you’d have would be a compromise, and I suspect a rather unattractive one at that.

              Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
11 + 15 =