As most readers at TSZ already know Dr. Swamidass is, or at least attempts to appear, as a new-age prophet with a noble idea of the unifying evolutionary science with Intelligent Design. Not bad a idea…huh? Peaceful relations between two world views… So what could be wrong with that? Right?
Can ID and evolutionary theory be unified, or at least come to terms in a peaceful, civilized way?
If you think that they can, please indicate why…
If not, why not?
I personally think that Peaceful Science idea of attempting to find a common ground between ID and evolutionary theory comes at a great cost…Do you?
No, that’s not what he is trying to do.
If ID were to concede that all life evolved without intelligent intervention after the initial life form arrived (either by design or not) then they could possibly be unified. They can certainly come to terms in a peaceful way. But if the behaviour of ID proponents at UD is indicative of the behaviour of ID proponents in general, then it will never happen.
No. He is…
What is the initial form of life?
Well, that might be true if you were correct…
But I think Swamidass is simply trying to encourage folks back into the daylight. There is no ID. There never was, beyond a snappy title. There was only ever sleight-of-hand.
Isn’t this a self-refuting statement, Alan?
How about your previous statements that not only self-refute your comments? They clearly indicate that you couldn’t care less “one way or another”…
Do you need links?
If you don’t care, why are you wasting your precious life here? I don’t get it…
Probably not clear. I doubt the assumption in your question – that Swamidass is “attempting to find common ground between ID and evolutionary theory”. I further suggest it is, in any case, impossible because ID has no ground, scientifically speaking,
I don’t think ID is going anywhere as an idea. It had a purpose at one point in US politics. It proved useless.
I actually quite enjoy interacting with others and, now I’m retired, it’s my own time.
I think the unifier is Mike Behe.
Because he accepts common descent… out of the convenience that…say… sells books?
Give me a break, Bill!
Mike only defends what he can defend… (smart).
If evolution “devolves”, as per Mike Behe, how could it lead to common descent?
If you answer this question, or Mike Behe does, I will never post here again…
Not surprising… You gave me the incomplete recipe for scallops the first time around…
What is Swamidass trying to accomplish by trying to “find the common ground”? Whom is he trying to find the common ground with?
Why? You said it more than once that you don’t care whether God exists or not…Why would you care what others believe and why?
I think accepting common descent is the unifier as evolution really has no identified mechanism that makes any sense. Common descent can be an explanation of the similarities but design explains the differences. Together they are a possible explanation of the nested hierarchy.
The problems with this start with certain transition where one organism does not look anything like the other such as the prokaryotic cell and animal and plant eukaryotic cells. Other problems are genes not following the tree pattern. While there is evidence for some common descent universal common descent is a much tougher claim. I agree with you that Behe is accepting this for the sake of argument however a unifier does extend olive branches 🙂
Read it again Bill!
This is as far as I got…
Other scientists. In particular, Christians who support evolution but who are all over the map in how they support it.
Let me suggest that you go over to Peaceful Science and ask him directly whether his project there is “the unifying evolutionary science with Intelligent Design.”
Pretty sure he will say no and that should settle the matter for both of us.
Of course… and I’m bound to believe him… because he is a man with no ego who lets atheists write whatever the hell they want on ID/ Christianity/God but anyone who writes anything against his beliefs gets flagged ” by the community”… Dr. Frittata has an immunity though coz he contributes to the host’s goal… which is finding common ground between what Mung?
To unify ID and evolution, does it matter? Evolution makes no claim on this. And Neither does ID, other than the pointless claim that it involved an intellligence.
So mutations don’t explain differences?
What, all of ’em?
They do…but the great majority of mutations degrade the gene functions…
Dog breeds are the perfect examples…
I don’t think you have answered my question about the initial life form (s)…
Dr. Swamidass uses the expression “…maybe God guided the evolution…” to try to explain the gaps in evolution…
I asked him whether the embryo development process, namely the cell diferentiation process, requires God guidance, as per category theory…
He claims to be a mathematician but like our math experts at TSZ, he seems to be clueless about that…or the right answer is inconvenient to his unification process…
All of the designed ones.
Most mutations in functional DNA are deleterious yes. Biologists have been aware of this for something like a century by now. But so what?
Sure I did. It doesn’t matter. Neither theory has any mechanisms to describe it. But evolution certainly has a theory and proposed mechanisms on how life proceeded after that. What does ID have? “POOF”
No. The idea is to explain the gaps in theology.
What I gave you were some hints on cooking scallops – not a recipe.
Deleterious mutations do not lead to an increase of information…Quite the opposite; to a decrease of information or even loss of function of genes and organs…
Domestic dog breeds, few hundred of them, are the perfect examples of the reductions of functions, or losses of functions of genes of the wolf…I wouldn’t be surprised if coywold would turn out to have degraded functions of genes or even total losses of functions of genes and organs…
Evolution doesn’t have the mechanism to explain the quantum leaps in the process starting with embryo development i.e. cell differentiation…
I don’t know what ID has…
I sure suspect the Quantum Poof… There is no other way to explain the formation of even the simplest of life forms…
On the subatomic level inanimate matter and animate matter differ only by the arrangement of quantum states …but then there is dark energy…
I am YEC.
Yet I see ID as including different species.
Those who see the universe showing a complexity that demonstrates God/intelligence. So the fingerprints of God is apparent in nature.
THEN others take on evolutionism in part, more parts, or seemingly all parts.
Thats two, or four, species.
Except the last species the rest are comfortable with many conclusions in biology/geology/time that evolutionists asserT.
NOW with evolutionists i think conspiracy has been revealed. Many/close to many have used evolutionism as proof that there is no fingerprints of a God?intelligence.
THEY PROTEST no interest in a God but actually defend that there is no evidence in nature of a God. naughty fibbers.
They were not just innocently showing rhinos evolved from a land-grabbing fish.
They were, like Darwin, eliminating the evidence for a creator in biology/geology/cosmology. The big complicated things. that historically indicated to most men a thinking being was about. Just as the bible says.
Anyways its about accuracy in truth.
Then this requires, in these complicated things, intelligence. This then predicts the more intelligent will be selected and prevail in a new population(opinion) to come.
We are all in selection mechanisms right now in the world of ideas/conclusions.
These blogs really are the skirmishers ahead of the rest.
Mung is correct; you are simply wrong. This is not part of Swamidass’ agenda. He rejects IDT & IDism & has said this repeatedly & in no uncertain words. I don’t expect you to admit you are or ever were wrong about this & it’s not like you are representing religion or Christianity anyway, right?
Re: ‘new age prophet,’ well, his friend started his own evangelical protestant church. Joshua might have similar leanings as ‘relativistic’ as his ‘nuanced positions’ often appear. Does that count?
& yes, he welcomes atheists at PS, which is why more people from TSZ should go there. The voices of atheists at PS will likely never be silenced, which is exactly what Joshua wants in his curious ‘fifth voice’ strategy. He’s got a ‘thing’ for atheism, it seems, much like Vincent here at TSZ prefers to speak with ‘skeptics’ than with fellow religious believers.
Really? I’m really glad you said that and not me… 😉
“Is Peaceful Science carefully (enough) scripting its politicking with the Freedom From Religion Foundation?”
Is this agenda, according to your own statement, not only a noble, but more so Christian thing to do?
How much more closer can one get to the Christian God than collaborate with the atheistic Freedom From Religion Foundation? Unless Freedom From Religion Foundation has some hidden agenda that only you and Swamidass know about , it’s pretty clear to me what his ‘thing for atheism’ could be…
“The voices of atheists at PS will likely never be silenced, which is exactly what Joshua wants in his curious ‘fifth voice’ strategy
You’re telling me… 😉
This is divisive & Joshua is seeking to bring people together. He’s ‘collaborating’ with people across the spectrum. Sometimes he pokes fun at Patrick, which is well-deserved more than Joshua does it.
Let’s not have anyone misled to think that you are promoting a coherent religious position. Your self-righteous non-Christian, non-Islamic, non-Jewish religious muddle isn’t any more noble than what you are ‘critiquing’ at PS.
If you don’t even know that Joshua is anti-IDT, there’s little reason to trust much of anything in what you say, since that’s obviously untrue.
<blockquote."It’s pretty clear to me what his ‘thing for atheism’ could be…"
Frankly, it most likely that you’re mistaken about that as well. Joshua has behaved quite rudely towards me in public & personally, trying to be an expert in fields he has little to no knowledge about with someone who does have the requisite knowledge. Yet still I trust him more than obviously confused ‘J-Mac.’ LOL!
He causes divisions in order to bring people together? I think I understand…At least it’s obvious who is the confused one…
Gregory: “Yet still I trust him more than obviously confused ‘J-Mac.’ LOL!”
At least you are certain he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
No, you don’t understand.
Yes, Joshua did NOT like your way of posting at PS, and you resent that.
Joshua also did not like the way that Gregory was posting at PS. And Gregory probably resents that, too. But he is still able to see value there at PS.
(edit) inserted “NOT” to correct accidental omission.
What a difference a word makes!
Dr. Swamidass welcomes people willing to seek common ground and engage in constructive discussion. Religion, or the lack of it, doesn’t prevent anyone from engaging in that kind of discussion.
Joshua doesn’t seem to like things very much that he obviously doesn’t understand; he gets agitated & quickly proud at his erudition when stepping in foreign fields. Ideology is something he does not understand simply because he was not trained to; until only recently he thought it was spelled with an ‘a’! ; ) The penetration of ideology in science, including the ways he himself approaches ‘science & religion’ discourse, has coloured his thoughts as a natural scientist with ideas quite different & sometimes incoherent to how philosophers, social scientists & many people on the street think about these things. His knowledge & execution of particularly biological sciences with the aid of computation may nevertheless be competent or above; that doesn’t change or influence the focus of my critique.
Unfortunately, he is being directly lied to about an ‘outing’ incident that actually didn’t take place – right here at TSZ – by a fellow MD whose fence-sitting he trusts. He then made a decision in haste considering first & foremost his reputation rather than potential for actual disruption, having not so many members at the time & an authoritarian hand of management. In that he behaved just like his former colleagues at BioLogos. He completely controlled the lock-down phase simply because he didn’t like that I was suggesting on PS that atheists would poison the well there. So he brought in an additional token Moderator who lied to him & others before banishment.
Joshua not only allowing, but encouraging a person who called himself a ‘militant atheist,’ was asking for trouble in my view of what he was doing; yet that seems to be what Joshua wanted for what he calls ‘PS’. He put an atheist cheerleader for Science, Reason & godlessness who was & still is flattering him ahead of a theist who has studied scientists like Joshua. It might be possible Joshua could still demonstrate that he could ‘learn a thing or two’ based on philosophy or sociology of science if he’d only finally listen (one of the most uncomfortable voices of scholarship that natural scientists themselves almost can bear to hear!). Thus he gave a rather poor explanation for dismissal because he couldn’t handle the repercussions of having his position openly challenged on his site. That’s the ‘Joshua Model’ of diplomacy, apparently. ; )
No, I don’t resent Joshua. He seems sincere, jovial & I have no reason to question his Lutheranism. He is scientifically trained to engage in the topics he mainly raises at PS. He may now be in an enviable position, certainly having tenure at WUSTL makes a huge difference regarding how he can express himself at PS or elsewhere on the internet.
I just don’t find his mainly evangelical publications of ‘science & religion’ works & conference presentations, speaking engagements, etc. my ‘style’ or frankly that persuasive or profound. Ann Gauger actually speaks much more coherently & effectively than does Swamidass about the importance of the research upon which he is currently attempting to build his career-defining Genealogy of Adam works right now.
That said, you’ve not seen or heard many things, Neil, given that you don’t and likely haven’t frequented other sites in which credible, serious, talented scientists who are also devoutly religious people participate. That ‘kind of discussion’ has never been what’s interested you (nor apparently does it interest Torley as much as his Christian apologetics to skeptics), though it’s nice to see you contributing at PS. So, please understand that Joshua now framing himself as ‘science & religion sage’ with his shifting definitions is a quite recent phenomenon in the broader conversation.
He has sounded a challenge to a host of his ‘opponents,’ which now includes BioLogos, the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe and Answers in Genesis. He’s got a UU retired fanatic, an apparently pushover YEC friend (like most of Joshua’s family, apparently) & a politically active atheist as three of his main cheerleaders, intentionally. The rest of the cast, however, is coming along quite nicely, even with the ghost writer of the IDM sometimes checking in there. _/_
To clarify, in one of Swamidass’ recent video interviews he confirms that most of his family are YECs. I have no idea if any or who among them is a pushover.
Atheists exist and are a growing group in North America. What would you do to counter it if you could, Gregory? (Assuming you had some political power). Other than legal or political oppression, you only have the power of argument and everyone is free to vote with their feet. What’s the appeal of Christianity?
I’d ship them to France!
Yes, apparently in China the opposite problem abounds with churches being suppressed & shutdown in the underground. In Canada where I live, it is immigrants who often bring their religious traditions that the ‘older generations’ have lost.
If you’re a Western European baby boomer, do you think reporting your own personal lack of religiosity as if that were noble or existentially comfortable comes as a surprise to anyone? What is not excusable, in my view, is lack of effort, lack of sensitivity & indeed, apathy towards religion. It’s a cultural universal; grow up & learn to deal with that fact politely in your own way, better yet with the help of a community.
That’s disingenuous coming from a self-proclaimed ‘apatheist.’
Torley, over to you & your (not those Christian) ‘apologetics’.
We’d hardly notice. Secularism rules here apart from some banlieus where immigration and lack of integration have created pockets of radical Islam.
No indeed. It’s only since getting drawn into the ID debate and it only ever crops up in internet conversations.
I disagree that it is a cultural universal.. It might have been once but organised religion has completely lost its way in Western Europe. And I’m always polite and considerate to religious people that I meet in my daily life – though I don’t meet many.
Your disagreement matters little as it is based upon ideology & wishful thinking, not evidence or experience. You simply have not (yet) learned to live a ‘religiously musical’ (Weber) life. It’s like a colour-blind person telling everyone else that colour doesn’t exist. Like we’re bothered by it! ; ) It’s just not an inspiring position, even among other anti-theists here at TSZ.
End of ‘chat’ with disingenuous ‘apatheist’.
Oh, come now Gregory. Honestly, my atheism has been of very little consequence prior to encounters will gung-ho US Christians since I developed full-blown SIWOTI syndrome somewhere around 2005.
Who’s “we” in this context?
It looks like Ann Gauger got the first hand experince of what I have mentioned in this OP…
Here is a quote:
“At What Cost?
Swamidass thrives on conflict, the idea that he is building a big tent where everyone can come in and find a home, whether YEC, OEC, TE, atheist, agnostic. (Maybe ID.) He thinks we can do good science together, or at least find a way to interpret the science that doesn’t offend any religious sensibilities.
This is the theme of both his projects: To seek a way to allow all groups to find peace together. Swamidass sees his new idea as a way to reconcile science and faith on the issue of origins. It’s a noble aim, but I count the cost as too high, in terms of both science and faith.