Theistic Evolutionists and ID proponents go to war!

Just was over at William Dembski's blog after reading his article on theistic evolution. I am afraid I will have to agree with Evolved on this one, Willie doesn't make himself look like the sharpest crayon in the crayon box. He makes the claim that theistic evolutionists think Intelligent Design is dangerous to the moral fabric of society. Well if you mean intellectual honesty and scientific accuracy is threatened by the tactics of ID proponents then I agree. However ID is not as much dangerous to morality as much as it is to the credibility of Christianity as large.

Now let us examine the next claim;

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian
(cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these
masters he serves more faithfully. A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins’s
website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here
— the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming
the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as “a
clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues.” The obvious question this raises
is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate)
important issues is itself an important issue.

Could it be that the evolutionists’ assault on both science (by
perpetuating the fraud that natural selection has unmatched creative powers) and
religion (by using evolution as a club to beat people of faith) is undermining
America’s soul? Not according to Miller. He’s got other fish to fry. For him,
it’s the ID proponents’ assault on evolution that is undermining America’s soul.
Forget about Dawkins and his blasphemy challenge. Let’s shaft the ID community.

Alright first of all it does not matter whether Ken Miller serves evolution or Christ more faithfully, what matters is that he is right on scientific matters, his religious sincerity is between him and God. Evolution is only an ideology if Gravitivism and Plate Tectonism are also ideologies. As for the blasphemy challenge, I thought it was stupid, so I pretty much agree with Miller. Besides the blasphemy challenge was for people who were already atheists to profess their unbelief. Now to the embarrassment of the Rational Response Squad which sponsored it that is not actually the unpardonable sin, of course that is a different subject.

"Evolutionists" are not attacking science anymore the ID is attacking religion, and yes Natural Selection with help of mutation does have near unlimited creative powers, yes proponents of atheism do use evolution to attack religion, of course they also use similar tactics when saying that religion can't be true when religious believers used to believe earth was flat or was geocentric. I think we have gotten over that, eventually we will be over creationism and will be able to give a straight forward defense of our faith. What Miller means by "America's soul" is not a spiritual soul but the fact that to Miller an attack on science is an attack on the American way of life, he is not making a statement on spirituality of any kind, of course ultimately the ID debate is over intensely important philosophical issues. Now for the real whopper;

In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental
core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and
devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening
in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some
atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow
his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.”

The reason I and many other Christians oppose Intelligent Design is because they are missing one crucial component of a scientific theory its called EVIDENCE. IDers have so far failed to come up with any straight forward, reliable, peer-reviewed proof of Intelligent Design. If ID proponents are able to do this single feat then I will wholeheartedly support Intelligent Design, we are not as hard to convince as you might think. The reason we say it is as dangerous as atheism is that until ID can substantiate itself as a legitimate scientific theory it is at best pseudoscience and unreliable, and damaging to ones credibility. If Christian apologists are to align themselves with such questionable ideas such as Intelligent Design then we have basically made it easy for atheists to disprove our position because we have taken a flawed position. No doubt in the future atheists will use the stubbornness of some Christians not to accept the evolutionary theory against future Christians apologists because of our mistakes.

Dembski also goes on to state that one of the foremost critics of the ID position were in fact other Christians (oh I wonder why!?). Will and his colleagues need to understand that they have so much opposition from the religious community for one reason -- lack of, say it with me -- E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, On the other hand evolution has been the mainstream view for the past 150 years and evidence has continued only to increase. Most educated Christians are rightfully suspicious of a view which does not have much respect at all from the mainstream scientific community. Until Intelligent Design can is proven true it is dangerous to the credibility of faith and it should not be taken as an apologetic among Christians. We should instead stick to Thessalonians 5:21 and remain skeptical.

Here comes the war part;

So here’s the deal, everyone. Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to
ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in
Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this is his view toward ID
when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why
I didn’t give my permission). They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins
if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And
they need to be defeated.

To war! I for one even though I agree with Dawkins on the scientific veracity of evolution there is precious little that we agree on otherwise, we are not going to promote the God Delusion simply because Richard Dawkins makes a good case for evolution. Once again theistic evolutionists would stop being implacably opposed if the IDers gave evidence to support their paradigm.

Of course Dembski makes the obvious point that getting the youth is the way to help the Intelligent Design movement. This is of course how theistic evolutionists should follow suit. We cannot save the older generation, but the young people we can, we can influence them also to be theistic evolutionists and to eliminate this weakness in Christian apologetics. Reaching the you is a game that two can play you know.

I am going to have to read the book "Intelligent Design; everything you need to know in plain language" to see if that book is really the gem his claims it is. I will overlook what he says about his book Godless, it seems to contradict the claims that ID has nothing to do with religion but I doubt they are trying to say that anymore, to close so I can go to sleep (its 1:30 in the morning right now) I will discuss his final paragraph;

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin’s theory as God’s mode of creation. But I don’t think they are immoral or un-Christian for holding their views. But ID proponents, for wanting ID to have a place at the table as a scientific alternative to Darwinism, are, according to Miller, Collins, Alexander, etc., immoral, undermining Western civilization, and destroying America’s soul. Well, you want this fight, you’ve got it.

Alright Will, your going to have to explain how theistic evolutionists think you are immoral besides the fact that you don't seem to be the most honest person around. Now I would be more then happy to let you have ID as an alternative to evolution but first you need this little annoying thing called evidence, if you can make it there then you have my attention. Until then consider us mutually disconcordant.