Dr. Heddle, I'll make this somewhat brief for now but I'll give you a more considered response after I've had some sleep. I don't intend to ignore many of your points, but I don't have room or time to engage all of them just for now.

That is exactly right. You may not be insulted, but many of the PT crew would indeed assume that you’d be insulted, given that, in their view, there is not much worse than being called a creationist.

Yes, but I myself would not particularly care and in fact I think I've gone over this there previously.

Now, I am not sure what O’Donnell means by the “orginal definition.”

I am responding to what you wrote and therefore I am using the definitions you provided. In particular, what I quoted from your post is what I found most interesting and wanted to address.

First, O’Donnell seems to imply that there are two types of creationists, those like himself, theistic evolutionists, and the AiG types. Clearly that is not the whole story.

Actually nowhere did I make such an assertion in my post. I merely identified that "good guys" who believe God created the world are creationists. I am arguing that I see little point in the distinction and instead am more interested in what actual claims are being put forward.

A theistic evolutionist might decide to work his entire career in the hopes of explaining whatever the best example of irreducible complexity might happen to be

Irreducible complexity is a worthless concept to begin with. I would view that as a large waste of time because abundant evidence gives ample insight into how IC systems can arise. You don't need to put God into gaps in mans ignorance because all you do is eventually guillotine Him.

Is it a requirement to be a creationist that you want your beliefs taught in public school? ... Of course not—these are clearly separate issues.

This is a bait and switch Heddle and is rather irrelevant to my point. Firstly, creationism is debated because politically motivated individuals try to have it taught in public school science classes. Nobody would have a problem with 'creationism' in any form if this wasn't the case, people are welcome to hold whatever private beliefs they happen to like.

The whole problem with this controversy is attempting to undermine science education with unscientific metaphysical beliefs.

The fact that O’Donnell’s faith has not been attacked demonstrates that the PTers are treating him with kid gloves. Like Ken Miller, he is useful to them—he demonstrates their laudable tolerance. I don’t fall in that category (of being useful) and have had my faith (incoherently) attacked repeatedly—even, on at least one occasion, being called a child abuser for rearing my sons as Christians.

I have no idea about my apparent 'usefulness', actually I don't think I'm that useful overall really. That would be self inflating my importance beyond my station. Incidentally, they will have a go at 'theistic' evolutionists or anyone else if suitably prodded. In any event, I've watched the debates between you and various PT denizens and quite frankly, they really have a problem with you.

I liked your last paragraph though because that is the point I've made. But again, I've emphasised constantly where I draw the line between science and what I believe.
Joseph O'Donnell | Homepage | 03.08.06 - 10:38 am | #

And the reason that many PT denizens have a problem with Mr. Heddle is posts like this, where one can find all kinds of underhanded bait and switch-type tactics. I'll list a few examples.

"This makes no sense at all. It seems to me that if one is a theistic evolutionist, then one is a theist. If you are a theist, then how can you preclude the very possibility that God has intervened supernaturally? I can understand this description:"

Whether god exists and whether god has left evidence behind of supernatural intervention are two separate issues.

"That can’t be right—I’m not pushing creation science, nor am I a member of the DI. Yet I get called a creationist, pejoratively, all the time on Panda’s Thumb. Besides, if they are talking about members of the DI, why not refer to them as, oh, “members of the DI”?"

But, you miss the point (most likely intentionally) that supporting ID and the DI is not the same as being a member of the DI.

"The fact that O’Donnell’s faith has not been attacked demonstrates that the PTers are treating him with kid gloves. Like Ken Miller, he is useful to them—he demonstrates their laudable tolerance."

Except that many of the posters at PT are Christians (like the site owner for instance.) Who is this "them"?

"Very true—but it goes beyond that. A theistic evolutionist is also a proponent of intelligent design, whether or not they want to admit it. It is self evident—if they believe God exists and created the universe, even if “only” through the natural laws, then they still affirm that the universe is the (undetectable, perhaps) result of God’s work. That is, He intelligently designed it. The only difference with standard IDers is that they (theistic evolutionists) do not expect to find any scientific evidence that requires a supernatural explanation."

This has already been explained to you ad nauseum. Theistic evolutionists are NOT closet IDers by definition. More equivocation and underhanded tactics.
GCT | 03.08.06 - 11:51 am | #

Dave, a) I don't see the alleged "bait and switch" these two are claiming, and b) this is why I rarely bother trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is committed, a priori, to a materialistic view point without the ability to consider an alternative. At one point, I felt that I had to be a "theistic evolutionist" to reconcile my Christianity with the facts. Only when I was able to "take of the glasses" of my presumptions, was I able to see that materialistic explanations aren't as cut-and-dry as we are told in school. It was through being able to ask questions that I was brought, quite independently, to the same place you've arrived.

Until members of the Church of Materialism are given the freedom and autonomy to question their own faith, there will be no discussion. My faith, being firmly established on reason, thrives on questions.
havoc | Homepage | 03.10.06 - 10:50 am | #

havoc,
Are you serious?

"Materialists" have an a priori commitment to a "materialistic view point," but you don't have an a priori commitment to your Christian viewpoint?

Also, what makes you think that evolution is philosophically materialistic?

And, if you are equating philosophical materialism with atheism, what makes you think atheists have a "faith" to question? Furthermore, what "reason" establishes your "faith" and do be careful considering "faith" is generally a term for believing something for which there is no proof. What questions does your "faith" thrive on? I thought "faith" gave answers.

With all the problems in your comment, it's no wonder you can't see the logical fallacies in Mr. Heddle's.
GCT | 03.10.06 - 5:16 pm | #

GCT,

I do not have an a priori commitment to Christianity. Christianity is something that I questioned, tested and came, by way of reason, to accept and believe in.

"What makes[me] think that evolution is philosophically materialistic?" That's funny! As Dawkin's said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Your misunderstanding of "faith" is typical -- for both Christians and non-Christians. Faith is not contrary to reason. Faith is holding onto what your reason has accepted as true, in the face of emotions that try to convince you otherwise. (A poor paraphrase of C.S. Lewis' brilliant chapters on Faith.) I have faith in gravity, because it has never failed. I have faith in my chair because I've tested it.

I think the problems with my comment are not on my part, but on your part to not understand what I'm saying.
havoc | Homepage | 03.12.06 - 12:02 am | #

Havoc, that is complete BS. Do you think that atheists (or materialists) haven't questioned, tested, and come, by way of reason, to accept and believe there is no god? Why is that an a priori commitment, while yours isn't? Get off your high horse. Oh, and by the way, what evidence do you have for god that reason demands that you believe in him/her/it?

Yes, Dawkins said that evolution make it POSSIBLE to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The key word there is the one in all caps. Because evolution was the first science on the diversity of life that didn't assume god first. Therefore, it cast off the shackles of the a priori commitment to god. It does not mean that one must be atheist to accept evolution, but one had to be religious to accept the ideas that came before evolution. Perhaps you can see the difference there?

You are also equivocating different meanings of the word "faith". You have "faith" in gravity of the kind where it's been tested over and over empirically and shown to be consistent. The faith you have in god however, is not testable, or do you have a way to show that god exists?

Trust me, the problems aren't with my misunderstanding you. I understand you quite well. The problem is that you really don't understand what it is that YOU are saying.
GCT | 03.13.06 - 6:45 am | #

Oh, and havoc, if you think evolution is philosophically materialistic and therefore requires atheism, how do you account for the Christians (and other theists) that accept evolution?
GCT | 03.13.06 - 7:36 am | #

GCT,

Sorry to upset you.

I don't think that evolution requires atheism. I do see that atheism pretty much hinges on evolution.

As for the "Christian Evolutionist," I think they live in a self-contradictory world, aside from Theistic Evolution, which catastrophically collides with Intelligent Design, which most TE's despise.

I remember that David wrote a good summary of "faith," but I can't seem to locate it.... grrr.
havoc | Homepage | 03.13.06 - 3:32 pm | #

Havoc,
If evolution does not require atheism, then it does not require an a priori commitment to it. So, what's your beef? Further, if evolution requires no a priori philosophical position, but ID does, which do you think is more scientific?

Why are "Christian Evolutionists" self-contradictory? Perhaps you can explain that? The Catholic Church has said (Mr. Heddle tries to deny it, but he is wrong) that there is no conflict between evolution and Catholicism. Other Protestant churches find no problem as well. Why should the Christian churches reject something that has tons of evidence for it. More philosophically, why could god NOT operate through evolution? Certainly an omniscient, omnipotent being could do anything that it wants. So, why not?
GCT | 03.14.06 - 6:48 am | #

There you go again, GCT. All I see from you are accusations on everyone else. First of all, evolution is not how God had His people record it in God's word. Second of all, if you go by "a lot of people in this group or that group says..." why should that be proof as in your naming of denominations? I'll bet not all people you stereotype in those denominations agree with your presumptions. Then what about the many denominations that you don't name that believe in Creationism?

With your philosophical argument, why would God need evolution? Certainly an omniscient, omnipotent God could do anything He wants. So, why choose evolution to do something He can do without?
Reagan | 03.20.06 - 9:38 pm | #

Reagan,
Accusations? I see a lot of questions, questions that are relevant to the topic. If I ask you questions, will you think I am accusing you of something?

If one says that evolution is atheistic, then why can't I use the example of Christians who accept evolution? It's not an appeal to authority, because the claim was that X entails Y and I'm giving examples of the opposite of that. The person who puts forth the assertion that evolution (X) is atheistic (Y) must then either show how those Christians are wrong, or must concede the point. Whether there are denoms. that believe in Creationism or not, that doesn't change the fact that some do accept evolution and don't seem to be atheistic. So, would you like to take on the task?

Further, it is not stereotyping, it is fact that there are Christians who accept evolution.

Also, do you know the mind of god? I thought that no one could know the mind of god. So, who are you to say that god did or did not use evolution?
GCT | 03.21.06 - 6:44 am | #

There you go again, GCT. Even if a Christian does something wrong, does that make whatever that wrong action become acceptable for Christianity? I think not. And, if you say, yes, you need to learn more about Christianity. There were a lot of bone-headed things done by people making the Christian claim, but that does not make those bone-headed actions a part of Christianity.

You seem to want to speak for God in telling everyone that evolution is what God did. I go by what God tells us through the Bible, His written word.
Reagan | 03.21.06 - 8:56 am | #

Reagan,
There I go again with what? What have I done "again"?

What is it that you say Christians are doing wrong? What have I accused Christians of doing wrong? What "bone-headed actions" are not a part of Christianity?

I'm not the one speaking for god either. I'm pointing out the possibilities. No where did I say that god used evolution, only that it was a possibility. If you are saying that god did not use evolution, then I'm afraid that YOU are the one speaking for god. As for the Bible, could it be that maybe you are interpretting the Bible incorrectly? You might not be, but isn't it possible that you are?
GCT | 03.21.06 - 10:34 am | #

Again, GCT? You use some Christians as an example of why all Christianity should accept evolution.

By your pushing of Christians to accept evolution, you infer that evolution must be true.

As for interpreting the Bible, read it yourself - God created the...not God changed one form into another. I echo God's word. I do not make up some theory and push it off as fact.

Could it be that you are wrong and refuse to face the reality of God?
Reagan | 03.21.06 - 10:49 am | #

Reagan,
Perhaps you should read all the comments before you opine? The assertion was made that evolution is atheistic. To refute that, I pointed out that there are Christians that accept evolution. I'm not sure why that is so offensive to you, but that's frankly not my problem. If one makes an erroneous statement like that, then I am completely justified in pointing out that it is erroneous and citing the example I cited.

I'm not saying that all Christians should accept evolution simply because some do. I'm saying all Christians should accept evolution because it is well supported by science. I "infer" that it is the best explanation we have and that is why I think everyone should accept it.

Now, as for your Biblical question, it says that god created, but how is still up to interpretation. If god used evolution, then god still created.

It's quite possible that I could be wrong, and I'm willing to admit that. The fact that you aren't willing to admit that shows hubris in the extreme. You seem to think that you know the mind of god. Well, pride comes before the fall.
GCT | 03.21.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Does it hurt much, GCT, when you hit the ground from your arrogance?

Read Genesis again. The way God lays out the Creation, it does not fit into your evolutionary models.

Also, you say you could be wrong, yet you adhere to evolution as fact and want everyone else to do it, too. If that isn't arrogance to the extreme sprinkled in with being a max hypocite, I'm not sure what is.

BTW, science also supports Creation.
Anonymous | 03.21.06 - 2:55 pm | #

I'll go out on a limb and assume the last anonymous post was from Reagan and respond accordingly.

Reagan,
I'm not exactly sure why you are calling me arrogant. I've freely admitted that I might be wrong. You are the one who seems to think you know god's mind; I've never made that claim.

As I said before, I think evolution is very well supported and I accept it as the best explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.

I've read Genesis. Many others have read Genesis as well and have come to the conclusion that Genesis is NOT necessarily contradicted by evolution. Some of those people are even Biblical scholars. Why do you think those people are wrong? Do you hold to a strict, literal reading of the Bible?

What science supports Creation, and how are you using the term "Creation"? If you do take a literal interpretation of the Bible and are using the word "Creation" to mean that the universe was created in six literal days, then I would have to disagree with you. Astronomy, Cosmology, even physics in general do not agree with a literal reading of the book of Genesis. If you have a problem with evolution, then you should similarly have a problem with those fields of science as well, and you should take a serious look at the device that you type your next comment on, as it runs on the scientific principles that you would be denying.
GCT | 03.21.06 - 3:11 pm | #

If you admit that you might be wrong, why do insist that your evolution is rignt? That is arrogance. That is speaking for God.

I've read Genesis and conclude that it contradicts your evolutionary model. So do many other Bible scholars in my train of thought. Why do you think Genesis is wrong?

I don't speak for God as you keep making the claim. I speak from what God gave us, the Bible.

Equating science to evolution is one of your fallacies. A = B, A = C, but B is not necessarily C that you try to equate. One can agree with science, but one does not have to agree with evolution. Evolution is not a science foundation. Evolution is a theory dreamed up via science.
Reagan | 03.21.06 - 5:19 pm | #

Reagan,
So, if I admit the logical possibility that god might exist and that evolution may be wrong, then I'm being arrogant because I don't think evolution is wrong? If I think that the logical possibility exists, then it must be wrong, or else I'm arrogant for not abandoning it, and to top it off I'm speaking for god? I'm giving possibilities here, you are the one who is speaking definitively. I don't understand why you can't see that.

So, you've read Genesis and concluded evolution is wrong, and so have other people. But, that does nothing to disprove those who read Genesis and see no conflict between evolution and Christianity. Further, evolution being correct does not necessarily mean Genesis is wrong if the Christians that disagree with you are correct. They are not saying Genesis is wrong. They are saying that their interpretation of it is consonant with evolution.

I claim that you are speaking for god, because you are speaking with authority about YOUR interpretation of the Bible, and are unwilling to admit that YOUR interpretation may be wrong. You have set yourself in the position of being infallible, and as far as I know, the only infallible being according to Christianity is god. Hence, you are speaking for god if you claim infallibility.

Also, what part of evolution is not science? It follows the scientific method, as does the physics and cosmology that tells us the Earth is billions of years old. I don't equate science to evolution, but I do say that evolution is a part of science and fully follows the scientific method.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and theory in this case is something that is well supported via the scientific method. Please don't use the old canard that "It's just a theory" where you try to imply that theory means hunch. In science, this is not the case. In science, a theory is something that is well supported by the evidence.
GCT | 03.21.06 - 6:10 pm | #

You are sad, GCT. So, according to GCT, one cannot read the Bible because one cannot trust the Word of God since someone on their own weird world interprets it in some wayward manner.

So, when you read the Ten Commandments, do they have different interpretations for something like Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery? Is that straight forward, or should someone go to some source who thinks adultery is OK to say the commandment is questionable and open to interpretation?

You cosmetically say that you may be wrong, yet you go on and on as if you are right about evolution and push evolution as if it were true. That is the hypocrite shining through.

Evolution supported by circumstantial evidence does not make something true.

Instead of insulting those who disagree with your evolution, you should do some study into Creationism.

I read the Word according to God, not the word according to GCT.
Reagan | 03.21.06 - 7:43 pm | #

Reagan,
How have I insulted you?

As for one reading the Bible and trusting the "word of god" as you put it, you are completely missing my argument. I will assume (for your sake) that you aren't doing it on purpose. You say that Genesis clearly states that evolution is impossible. Those others disagree. Why are they wrong? Is it possible that you are wrong in your interpretation? Why not? If you can't be wrong, then you set yourself as infallible, and no man is infallible.

It is not hypocritical to admit that one might be wrong but express confidence in one not being wrong. If my dog were to get pregnant, I might suspect that sneaky dog that lives next door of being the father. I would admit that I might be wrong, but I go out and find a whole he dug under the fence, I find a broken chain that was supposed to keep him tied up, and when the puppies come out, they look like him. Someone else comes along and says that my dog's pregnancy is a miracle and that god willed it to happen. Well, I can admit that I have no evidence to suggest that isn't so, so I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, but based on the evidence I do have, I'm still pretty confident that the dog next door did it. I hope this analogy helps clear up some of your confusion on my position.

Lastly, I want you ask you something. How do you know that your interpretation of Genesis is accurate? How do you know that Genesis itself is accurate? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm only trying to make a point. If you answer the questions honestly, I think I will be able to shed some light on the discussion.
GCT | 03.22.06 - 6:44 am | #