someotherguy

This may (or may not) come as a surprise to you, but I agree with the above almost completely (although trying to approach the Bible as it's characters and original readers would have is often easier said than done when one is 200-3000 years removed from it). As a Christian, one of the biggest problems I had with TE (which I agreed with for the most part) was what to make of Adam and Eve. To me, a literal Adam and Eve were critical as a basic underpinning of Christian theology, but from what I could tell there wasn't much reason for me to believe that either of these two people ever existed. In the end this (along with many other things) led me to start seriously questioning my faith.
I personally do not feel that Theistic Evolution is all that logically consistent, but maybe it was never really meant to be. Whatever the case, I'm more than happy to take a "live and let live" attitude with Theistic Evolutionists because by and large I have found them to be much more tolerant to my views and far less likely to be openly hostile to science (unlike the Creationists).

Stumpjumper

Mordy

Here is a passage that dates back to the time of Jesus. It does not appear that they were Biblical literalists.

From "The Gospel of the Essenes"
The Essenes were a sect of Judaism that existed at the time of Jesus and they were some of His early followers. (the original manuscripts are held in private in the Vatican archives, and were translated into English in 1937)


Seek not the law in thy scripture, for the law is Life.
Whereas the scriptures are only words.
I tell thee truly,

Moses received not his laws from God in writing,
but through the living word.
The law is living word of living God
To living prophets for living men.

In everthing that is life law is written.
It is found in the grass, in the trees,
In the rivers, in the mountains, in the birds of heaven,
In the forest creatures and the fishes of the sea;
But it is found cheifly in thyselves.

All living things are nearer to God
Than the scriptures which are without life.
God so made life and all living things
That they might be the everliving word

Teach the laws of the Heavenly Father
And the Earthly Mother
To the sons of men.

God wrote not the laws in the pages of books,
But in thy heart and in thy spirit.

They are in thy breath , thy blood, thy bone;
In thy flesh, thine eyes, thine ears.
And in every little part of thy body.

They are present in the air, in the water,
In the earth, in the plants, in the sunbeams,
In the depths, and in the heights.

They all speak to thee

That thou mayest understand the tongue and the will
Of the living God.

The scriptures are the works of men,
But life and all it's hosts are the work of God.

Mordy

Which has NOTHING to do with christianity, why should we trust this source as authoritative, why should we trust that the people who wrote that were deriving this information from allegedly god inspired writings? What is the criteria for Christian god's inspiration? Once you lose a cohesive, trustworthy and authoritative defintion of the christian god and his message, would you agree that you're no longer believing in the christian god?

Mordy

I asked you from the outset to give me definite criteria for a standard of discourse. You have provided none. Without a standard of discourse it is impossible to even attempt solutions, if there are no agreed upon rules or standards to judge the truth or falsity of a claim to knowledge. Thank you for showing me that you are just like creationists in that you use evasive language and veiled insults instead of providing me with a framework for discussion that is VALID, give me a framework, then we discuss its validity and how you derive certain knowledge from that framework and if its even possible. If its not possible to derive anything certain then you're worse off then the fundy's, you're pseudo-intellectual gymnast not worth even discussing anything with if you cannot provide a standard by which we can be certain we are deriving trustworthy and factually accurate knowledge.

Mordy

We'll deal with Ken first, he wrote "Finding darwins god"


From a review at amazon:

Ken Miller has really become well known for his "refutations" of the intelligent design movement and Michael Behe in particular. FDG is frequently mentioned as a good book for 'how to think' about this issue and indeed lots of people really seem to like Miller's approach. But in reading this book I must say that I was quite dissappointed. Not only does Miller seriously misrepresent Behe's position but Miller's own position seems full of contradictions.

I'll deal with the second claim first.

o Miller rejects the idea that evolution is purposeful throughout his book, but then argues that the outcome of evolution is inevitable (238).

o Throughout his book, Miller rejects (and even ridicules) the idea that there is design in nature, but then suggests that perhaps the laws of nature are designed (191).

o Miller asserts that Phillip Johnson's position of design "cannot be tested, cannot be disproven, cannot even be investigated" just *5 lines* after he says when Phil's case "is tested against this reality, it fails, and it fails every time." (126) It can't be both Ken.

o Throughout his book Miller rejects (and ridicules) the idea that God works through the unknown aspects of nature (God of the Gaps) but then goes on to argue in Chapter 7 that God acts in the mysterious unknowable breaks (literally gaps) in quantum action. He thinks this is a safe bet because quantum indeterminacy can never be solved--but that's precisely the position he has mocked so many times- those who put God in the 'safe' areas that will never be figured out!

o Ultimately Miller is harshest on the creationists because they have let their theology drive their science, but time and time again Miller states his assumptions about what God would and wouldn't do. He then uses these assumptions to close off some realms of scientific inquiry because he thinks his God wouldn't do things a certain way (101). In the beginning of the book he states that he believes in God "because evolution is right." (17) Ultimately, just like the creationists, this book is about a particular theology and the select science that supports it.


Now here are a couple of the ways in which Miller misrepresents Behe:

o Paley Repackaged

MILLER: "Behe openly admires the great nineteenth century advocate of design, Rev. William Paley, and quotes extensively from Paley's Natural Theology to make his case" (135)

RESPONSE: Behe cites Paley only in a section on the history of design arguments (Darwin's Black Box 211-218) and though he does say some positive things about Paley (as does Dawkins), he also critiques Paley "for not framing his argument more tightly," (213) and for putting forth "silly" and "misguided" examples. Natural Theology is only referenced times in these nine pages. In contrast Dawkins is cited/referenced on 21 pages and Darwin is discussed on some 50 different pages.

o The Eye

MILLER: The eye "is a classic example of an irreducibly complex organ." (135)

RESPONSE: Behe does not claim the eye to be an IC organ. In fact he states, "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level" (DBB 22). Behe does detail the biochemical process of vision (18) but makes no argument whether it is in fact irreducibly complex only stating generally that "biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin."

o Paley Again

MILLER: Behe "literally has dusted off the argument from design, spiffed it up with terminology of modern biochemistry, and then applied to the proteins and macromolecular machines that run the living cell." (136)

RESPONSE: Behe does concede (as should we) that "Paley's famous first paragraph concerning the watch is exactly correct..." (215) [after all the watch is designed right?]. However, Behe does acknowledge "problems start when Paley digresses from systems of necessarily interacting components to talk about arrangements that simply fit his idea of the way things ought to be." Behe's argument for ID is not an argument from analogy (like Paley's) but rather one based on positive knowledge about the functional integration of specific systems.

o The Ear

MILLER: The ear and its "five component system perfectly fits the criterion of irreducible complexity."

RESPONSE: Behe does not argue for design based on the anatomy of the hearing system. Behe doesn't even mention hearing in DBB. Whether the anatomical structure is IC is not clear, but the anatomy is beside the point for Behe's argument from a molecular standpoint. Straw man again.

On How to Build a Cilium

MILLER: "A phone call to any biologist who had ever actually studied cilia and flagella would have told Behe that he's wrong in his contention that the 9+2 structure is the only way to make a working cilium or flagellum." (141)

RESPONSE: Behe never claims there is only one way to make a cilium.


Krebs Cycle:

MILLER: "The Krebs cycle is a complex biochemical pathway that requires the interlocking, coordinated presence of at least nine enzymes and three cofactors. And a Darwinian explanation for its origin has now been crafted." (151-152)

BEHE'S RESPONSE: "Either Miller hasn't read what I said in my book about metabolic pathways, or he is deliberately ignoring it. I clearly stated in Darwin's Black Box metabolic pathways are not irreducibly complex (Behe 1996) (pp. 141-142; 150-151), because components can be gradually added to a previous pathway. Thus metabolic pathways simply aren't in the same category as the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum. Although Miller somehow misses the distinction, other scientists do not. In a recent paper Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution "cannot generate irreducibly complex structures." But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, "such as the TCA cycle (Behe, 1996 a, b)." (Thornhill and Ussery 2000) In other words Thornhill and Ussery acknowledge the TCA cycle is not irreducibly complex, as I wrote in my book. Miller seems unable or unwilling to grasp that point."

---Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics, Michael J. Behe

In conclusion, I'd have to say that Miller's position seems pretty confused and that he seems willing to say almost anything to attack ID and defend his own theology.

Mordy

Note the statement I highlighted, if its not logically consistent, it is not knowledge by definition. It is non-concept and therefore incoprehensible since it violates the law of non-contradiction. Any objective belief or claim to reasonably certain knowledge must at its root be self-consistent and not self-refuting. Agreed?

Toto

Gospel of the Essenes

I suspect this review is correct:

More reviews here. ("I can't believe people are still being taken in by this decades-old hoax. . . ")

The case for this being a forgery is laid out here.

someotherguy

Agreed. If TE is self-contradictory then it is not a reasonable system of knowledge.

Mordy

Exactly, so what is the point of claiming to be christian and believing in the christian concept of god if it is inherently incomprehensible?

So therefore I would conclude theistic evolutionary christians, have no rational basis for believing in the christian conception of god.

someotherguy

I guess the problem is that most (or all?) Theistic Evolutionists do not accept the premise that TE is self-contradictory. I think that they are probably wrong but am willing to concede that it is possible that they are not. Again, this is where I get to the point where I just don't really care about whether or not they are wrong because they aren't being a global-scale pain in the ass like the creationists.