Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (3)

Debating Darwin and Design

A Dialogue between Two Christians

After a ridiculously and abnormally large blogging void (three months!), I have awoken from my slumber and written a response to Francis to continue our ongoing debate on intelligent design, creationism, and science. We have now decided to post our responses as they are individually written as opposed to waiting till they are both written and posting them in twos. This will allow the discussion to flow a lot more and we will attempt to keep the dialogue going at a more regular pace. I look forward to Francis’s forthcoming remarks…

Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’?

Joshua Gidney – Second Response

28th January, 2012

In response to Francis’ comments, I first would like to clarify something I wrote. In my previous response I wrote that intelligent design ‘isn’t even a form of creationism in any theistic sense.’¹ By this, I mean that ID theory does not rely on any theological premises, as Creationism does. ID is an inference from certain features in living systems and the cosmos whereas Creationism is based on a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis. William Dembski notes that ‘…the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism begins with Darwinism’s failure as an empirically adequate scientific theory, and not with its supposed incompatibility with some system of religious belief.’²

Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2)

Debating Darwin and Design

A dialogue between two Christians

Below are mine and Francis’s second set of responses to each other on our debate about intelligent design and Darwinism. If you wish to follow this dialogue from the beginning, then feel free to read my opening statement, Francis’s opening statement, and our first responses.

‘Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo?’

2nd November, 2011

Joshua Gidney-2^nd response

In my opening remarks I attempted argue that intelligent design is in no way synonymous with biblical young earth creationism. I also make the stronger claim that scientifically it isn’t even a form of creationism in any theistic sense. In his first response Francis ceded the former point but argues against the latter. He writes that ‘equation of ID with biblical creationism…is illegitimate,…’¹ and recognises that within the ID camp there is a wide range of views, pointing out that leading theorist Michael Behe emphatically rejects young earth creationism and is convinced by the evidence for common descent. Although both ID theorists, Francis compares Behe’s view with Paul Nelson’s view to illustrate the different positions within the ID tent. Nelson is quite a prominent ID theorist but is significantly more critical of Darwinian theory however, it is incorrect to say that Nelson’s view is base ‘history denial’ and doesn’t in fact hold explicitly to a young earth view. Responding to this accusation in a recent interview Nelson says ‘…I don’t believe in a six thousand year old or ten thousand year old earth; I actually don’t know how old the earth is. Professionally, in my work with my discovery colleagues, I take their date: 4.6 billion, but in my own thinking I don’t restrict myself to the assumptions being made by historical geology and cosmology.’²

Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (1)

In this post Francis and I are addressing the question whether intelligent design theory is really science or just a form of biblical creationism. I will be posting all our responses to one an other over time and each will be dated so it is easier to follow the order. Our comments will be published in couplets so the the opening remarks are alongside the responses and all further responses will follow this pattern. You may also wish to read my opening statements and Francis’s opening statements on this discussion.

Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo?’

20th September, 2011

Joshua Gidney-Opening

As I have already outlined in my opening statements, intelligent design theory states ‘that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause…’¹ ID theorists also claim that the theory is a scientific one, ‘…an inference from scientific evidence, not a deduction from religious authority.’² The question whether ID theory is scientific or just creationism is one that provokes much, if not most, of the discussion on this issue and it is a lot rarer to hear measured, rigorous debate about whether the theory has the empirical evidence on its side. Because of this it only seems necessary to sweep away some of these caricatures and straw men in order for us to discuss the validity of the methods by which we can detect design and what the empirical evidence itself suggests. In this part of the discussion, I will argue that ID is indeed a legitimate scientific theory and will attempt to defend it against claims to the contrary. I will also attempt to defend it against the common accusation that it is a synonymous with biblical creationism.

Debating Darwin and Design: Francis Smallwood’s Opening Statement

Debating Darwin and Design

 A Dialogue Between Two Christians

Francis Smallwood-Opening Statement

Explanations must stand on their own evidence, not on the failure of their alternatives.¹

Francisco J. Ayala

Evolution is a fact as certain as gravity or heliocentrism. From all corners of scientific investigation, from cosmology to geology to biology, the story of this universe and this small, though marvellously distinguished planet residing within it, is one of constant change; a story of evolution. Things have not always been as they are now and we can assume with great certainty that things will look very different in years to come. The story of life on earth is told very basically as the generation of complexity from simplicity; the creation of ‘endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful,’² each blaring design, yet replete in the marks of their tangled past, evincing their true origins, constrained by ancestry and principles of engineering and economy and shaped and re-shaped and shaped again according to the specifications of their natural environment.

I, like Joshua, am a Christian and believe this marvellous world to be the creation of a God revealed to us in the words of Scripture. However, as to the nature of that creation we must look to science. I stand with Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne in his proclamation that ‘Religion, if it is to take seriously its claim that the world is the creation of God, must be humble enough to learn from science what that world is actually like.’³

Debating Darwin and Design: Joshua Gidney’s Opening Statement

Debating Darwin and Design

A Dialogue Between Two Christians

Joshua Gidney-Opening Statement

‘Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a court room, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth…^’1

Stephen J. Gould

When it comes to the ultimate, vexing questions of origins, life, meaning and purpose, few are as hotly debated as questions about Darwin’s theory of evolution and Intelligent Design theory. For decades there has been much controversy in public and academic circles and although this controversy is most prevalent in America, the heated discussion can be found thriving almost anywhere. Due to the nature of the issues, discussions are often fraught with emotion, ideological baggage, worldview and religious beliefs and so it is often remarkably difficult to get to the truth behind the matters at hand. These questions are so important and attract such passion because they are to do with our own history, nature and origin. As philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski notes ‘There is a wide appreciation of the fact that if biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life…^’2 They are also important because science is one of the most successful and powerful cultural authorities, and theories firmly held to be true within the scientific community often have a huge influence on how everybody else views the world.

It is true to say that Neo-Darwinism ‘The synthesis of Darwin’s original theory with Mendelian genetics…’³, is zealously affirmed by the majority of those within the scientific community. Biological complexity, they claim, has evolved by natural selection acting upon random/chance genetic mutations, producing descent with modification. Neo-Darwinian theory can be expressed simply in the following way:

God and the Grand Design: Thinking About God and Science-A Weekend With Peter S. Williams

Since I haven’t been writing properly for almost six months now, I really haven’t been keeping up with things. There are so many things that I feel the need to write about, and as I have said in a previous post, there are plenty of interesting things to come. Before going on to these other things though, I would like to reflect upon a fascinating weekend that I was involved in at my home church, Hesketh Bank Christian Centre, with Christian philosopher and apologist, Peter S. Williams. This happened a couple of months back on the 14th and 15th of May and I meant to review the weekend soon after it happened but unfortunately didn’t get round to it. But, it’s better late then never I suppose. Some may recall that Peter has been the subject of a previous post where I reviewed his superb book A Sceptic’s Guide To Atheism: God Is Not Dead (Paternoster, 2009). I recommend any readers to get hold of this book.

It was not that long ago when I first became acquainted with some of Peter’s work, but I cannot remember exactly how this first happened. I seem to remember stumbling upon A Sceptic’s Guide To Atheism on Amazon, and having read the reviews of it (which were all positive), I felt compelled to order a copy. After reading it, it quickly became one of my favourite books. I could not help but admire his erudition, scholarship and his clear, high-octane

My Prolonged And Painful Absence

Ah, dear reader, I have indeed returned. To anyone who has ever bothered reading this blog or checked back once in a while, you will have noticed my conspicuous absence from the boisterous blogosphere. In fact, I have not written anything since February 7th. It’s almost been six months! For this I am deeply ashamed of myself. What are my reasons? Well, procrastination, stupidity, and laziness. Yes, I have no other reasons and I shall not bore you with any of the details with regard to what I’ve been up to in the past few months, or what situation I’m in now. I can’t because I don’t even know myself and life is incredibly confusing at the moment. Let’s put the past behind us (even though it already is!).

Taking A Blind Leap Of Doubt: Common Objections To The Historicity Of The New Testament, Jesus, And The Resurrection-Part 2

A continuation of my rebuttal to objections from ‘NotAScientist’…

I mentioned in a comment that it is clear who Jesus thought he was and who he claimed to be. I was then asked why this is important. I think it is very a important thing to take into account. He claimed many ‘wild’ things and clearly thought he possessed abilities and functions that were reserved for God alone. Historians do agree that he came onto the scene with a sense of divine authority (which is why he was charged of blasphemy which led to his crucifixion). Jesus claims raise many important questions. He was either blatantly lying or sincere. If he was sincere he was either speaking truth or a falsehood. If he was sincere but his claims were false then Jesus was entirely deluded of his self image. But what was he claiming? He was literally claiming to be God! A sincere but false claim like this would put one firmly in the category of a madman. But one brief look through his life and moral teachings demonstrate that the view that Jesus was a deluded madman, is entirely implausible. His teachings are some of the wisest and best moral teachings of any person in the past. If Jesus was neither lying or mad, then he was both sincere and correct about his self image. Jesus claims to divinity and life tell us a lot about the plausibility of his claims.

NotAScientist argues: “The utter lack of non-anecdotal evidence (for miracles) is the best objection. And the only one I need.”

Taking A Blind Leap Of Doubt: Common Objections To The Historicity Of The New Testament, Jesus, And The Resurrection-Part 1

In my previous blog post a while back, I made it my business to refute, or at least provide links to scholarly refutations, of several popular objections that are put forward by ‘sceptics’ and atheists pertaining to the historicity of the Christmas narratives. Subsequently I received several comments by someone who goes by the name of ‘NotAScientist’ who raised a few objections and broad questions with regards to the existence of Jesus, New Testament reliability and Jesus resurrection. In formulating a response, I ended up going into a lot more detail and research then I intended to. I ended up writing almost a 3000 word essay! This is a congenital weakness on my part. I suppose this could be seen as both a good and bad thing. My response also serves a larger purpose as it addresses many common objections in this area so decided to use it as a main article. Hopefully it will be informative and edifying to other readers also.

NotAScientist wrote “…I’d like to know what you think the evidence is, and what has convinced you of the accuracy of Christianity’s claims.”

Some of the evidence that convinces me of the accuracy of Christianity’s claims was included in my previous comment (see bottom of the previous post). Using the many extra-biblical sources alone, there is a lot that we can discern. I have expanded on this point further down. NotAScientist writes: “An itinerant rabbi named Jesus (or Joshua, or Yeshua) probably did exist in one form or another.” I think to say that he probably existed is actually an understatement. Jesus’ existence is about as historically certain as anybody’s in the ancient world and this is not merely an opinion. He asserts that the consensus among historians is lukewarm.

Post-Christmas Reflections (And Refutations).

As it is sadly the end of the Christmas break now, I have finally come to my senses again. Having done hardly anything over the last three weeks other than stuff my scraggy, undernourished body with the usual Christmas nosh, I am now a couple of pounds heavier and sat in solemn incomprehension at the thought of the arduous year that is to follow. And work? Well with irritating predictability, efforts to get my head down and do some have largely been unavailing. Christmas hasn’t been all that bad though, I did receive a couple of useful gifts and hopefully gave some as well. I cannot remember. Being the silly boob that I am, I wrote this short essay weeks ago when it was more relevant but forgot to publish it, so here it is…

A Merry Mythmas

For Christians, obviously the Christmas period is one of great significance and a time of celebration for the birth of Christ. Sadly in this country, I suspect that in the near future it will no longer be permissible to celebrate the Christian aspect of Christmas in public for fear of offending people of other faiths and non-believers. Christmas offensive? Who would have thought?