Skip to comments.Where’s the Dialogue? (Theistic Evos OK with "dialogue" in theory, but NOT IN PRACTICE)
Posted on 06/03/2009 8:26:25 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
When talking with friendly journalists, theistic evolution proponent Francis Collins typically insists that he wants to initiate a dialogue about faith and evolution.
But Collins and his colleagues at the Biologos Foundation seem curiously averse to engaging in real dialogue.
A case in point is a cranky blog entry posted this week by theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson, Francis Collins colleague at Biologos. Giberson, whom I debated at Biola University a few months ago, denounces Discovery Institutes new Faith and Evolution website as slick, well-resourced, rhetorically clever, profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science. Whew! Gibersons own post might be charitably described as almost completely devoid of any real substance. Giberson goes on to claim:
At BioLogos, we present solid evidence in favor of evolution We do not simply offer anti-design arguments and assume that we win by default. At Faith+Evolution, they produce no evidence for their position, nor do they even describe the design model they supposedly all embrace; all they present are arguments against evolution, with the supposed inference that design wins if evolution is defeated. In the final analysis, the site is little more than a exercise in rhetorichow can we frame what looks like a compelling argument for a position that we cant even articulate to ourselves.
I wonder how much of the Faith and Evolution site Giberson actually read. Our website certainly presents the scientific challenges to modern Darwinian theorythe sort of information you wont find on Gibersons Biologos site. But, contrary to Giberson, the Faith and Evolution site also presents the positive evidence for intelligent design. If you doubt this, go to the sites topic page about intelligent design. There you can read this summary of the scientific evidence supporting design, along with links to additional articles that provide a more detailed discussion (links to some of these articles can also be found here). As for a thoughtful presentation of the overall evidence and logic of the theory of intelligent design, philosopher of science Stephen Meyers 33-page scholarly article is a great place to start. Unlike the completely one-sided Biologos site, Faith and Evolution also highlights articles by those with different views: just look at the Debates section.
Gibersons broadside against Faith and Evolution is a remarkable example of projection. Giberson attacks a website with which he disagrees as profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science, when its his own article that makes patently false claims with no evidence to back them up. Gibersons basic approach is to insinuate that intelligent design proponents are insincere or disingenuous (hence our slick and profoundly misleading website). But Giberson never bothers to respond to the actual arguments offered throughout our website. To borrow a metaphor from our critics, this is intellectual exchange in a cheap tuxedo. It has the appearance of debate without its substance.
All in all, this is a strange way to do dialogue: Smear the integrity of the other party, rather than respond to his or her arguments. For myself, I dont doubt that Giberson sincerely believes that the evidence supports Darwinian theory, or that he sincerely thinks that intelligent design is wrong. But it would be nice if he would return the favor and treat intelligent design proponents as sincere. In a good dialogue, both parties typically at least assume the good faith of each other and try to respond with arguments based on evidence, not specious attacks on motives.
Maybe Giberson and his colleagues hope that intelligent design proponents will disappear so they dont have to engage them. But thats not going to happen. The debate over design in nature has been one of the great debates in Western civilization reaching back as far as Plato, and its not about to go away. The accumulated evidence for intelligent design supplied by discoveries in physics, cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, mathematics and related fields is simply too great.
Interestingly, the folks at Biologos essentially acknowledge the evidence for design in physics and astronomy. They just want to build a wall between those disciplines and biology: Outside of biology, reasonable people are allowed to discuss the evidence for design; inside biology, its verboten. The Biologos position might be called designer lite. But there is no good reason why evidence for design cannot be considered in whatever area it is found. When one discovers the same fine-tuning inside the cell that one finds in the universe as a whole, why shouldnt one be able to draw the same inference? More to the point, why shouldnt reasonable people be able to discuss the evidence for design in biology without having their motives questioned? Are the proponents of theistic evolution at Biologos so insecure that they dont want to allow an open discussion that includes anyone who disagrees with them?
Libs are never satisfied with the revealed truth in the Bible. Like Jefferson, they cut out all the stuff out of the Bible they don’t like and then say, “now here’s a god I can worship!” There is seriously something wrong with these people.
Well, let’s think this through.
“Dialog” means you have to have a common vocabulary and basis for discussion.
Sadly, there is no common basis for discussion for people who (those who understand TToE and other science) do and those who don’t understand science.
It is like having a “dialog” between people who know 1+1=2 (and understand the entire logic behind that proposition) and those who say “1+1=3” (because there is a supernatural force that supplies the missing part of the equation).
It is like the people of science are speaking English and the people of belief are speaking Swahili.
Of course, on these threads, the Swahili-speakers don’t bother to address the science (since their vocabulary can’t) and goes straight to ancestor insults.
Standard "cannot argue so call everyone who we disagree with a lib" response.
We don't even need Hari Seldon for this.
It is not so much it is so slovenly -- it so silly.
I know! The Evos are as braindead as they come.
Thanks for the ping!
How many pages have you cut out of the Bible, FreeDumb?
I don't think he's disappointed he also gave them free will though some seem to run amuck.
>>How many pages have you cut out of the Bible, FreeDumb?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ggg?
>>I know! The Evos are as braindead as they come.<<
IOW, “I don’t understand what they are saying so I will just spit at them.”
I don’t spit at Evos. However, I have noticed that a growing number of Evos have a penchant for spitting into the wind.
That’s a lot of pages FreeDumb.
I share my love equally.
>>I dont spit at Evos. However, I have noticed that a growing number of Evos have a penchant for spitting into the wind.<<
You merely spit at people who understand things you do not. This is normal and you should not feel bad about it. To be feeble is always frustrating and to have that pointed out objectively must really suck.
You sound like you are speaking from personal experience. You really shouldn’t assume everyone has the same comprehension problems and ill temper as you do.
Good night my mentally blind friend.
What happened in your childhood that required you to use God as a crutch to make you “special” and to attack standard science I will never know.
It is clear that your Mom or Dad or cousin or someone messed with you badly and now has put you where you need to be “One Of The Chosen” since no one actually ever chose you.
Enjoy your “special” relationship with whatever or whomever it is you need to make it so.
You’re not the first, you’re not the last. You’re just the most pitiful.
Remember to forgive your parents. They did the best they could.
I will say a prayer for them as well as you tonight.
Have a blessed night.
>>You sound like you are speaking from personal experience. You really shouldnt assume everyone has the same comprehension problems and ill temper as you do.<<
Ill temper? Perhaps. Comprehension? The irony almost requires me to go the clinic to read our posts to remove it all.
Wow, projecting on others, and talking to yourself...it’s much, much worse than I thought.
From what God has said it’s pretty clear what sort of wisdom and intellectual prowess He values.
I expect it’s not the same as what you have in mind when you say “brain”.
“Interestingly, the folks at Biologos essentially acknowledge the evidence for design in physics and astronomy. They just want to build a wall between those disciplines and biology: Outside of biology, reasonable people are allowed to discuss the evidence for design; inside biology, its verboten.”
—Actually, their positions on design in cosmology and biology are entirely consistent. Planets, stars, galaxies, species all formed because of the designed laws of nature.
“Are the proponents of theistic evolution at Biologos so insecure that they dont want to allow an open discussion that includes anyone who disagrees with them?”
—No, just not with those whose arguments are slick, well-resourced, rhetorically clever, profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science. It’s interesting how through the whole article they have the attitude that unless someone wants to converse with them that they aren’t interested in dialogue - and that apparently the Discovery Institute IS the “intelligent design” movement.
“Maybe Giberson and his colleagues hope that intelligent design proponents will disappear so they dont have to engage them. But thats not going to happen. The debate over design in nature has been one of the great debates in Western civilization reaching back as far as Plato, and its not about to go away.”
—Wow, so not only is the Discovery Institute THE voice of the ID movement, but unless one believes that an intelligent Creator was involved in creation just as the ID proponents (i.e the Discovery Institute) say, one doesn’t believe there’s design in nature at all.
And they wonder why others (including many Christians who believe in an intelligent Creator) are reticent to converse with them.