William Lane Craig's empty chair thread.

[nunnington]

So is the OP suggesting that Dawkins' declining to debate with Craig is equivalent to Craig declining to come to this forum? Mmm, somehow, that doesn't quite ring true.

It may be true that Dawkins doesn't like Craig's views on the Canaanites, or that he fears being bested by him in debate, especially if it takes place on philosophical issues. I don't know which is true. It would certainly be an interesting debate, which many people would be interested in.

[mindhack]

atheologicans

Is this a meaningful concept?

If yes, could you please give me a concise definition.

[Ihavenofingerprints]

That is a good question. I'd say; someone who believes life on earth was put there supernaturally by a God? I'm not 100% sure, what does everyone else think?

The problem is that there are creationists from every religion and it's hard to define them all with one definition. Saying a creationist believes the world is less than 10000 years old doesn't do justice to other religions with a creation myth.

That's true. Hindu creationists look at the idea that earth is about 4 billion years old and say that that is much too small a figure!

Still, if "Creationist" means someone who is okay with evolution, let's spell that out now, so we can inform those involved with the "Creation/Evolution" threads of their error.

I've seen your posts around the forum today. You might have a point. But at the end of the day, no matter what definition we use, there are going to be some fringe cases. Maybe WLC is one of them? I don't know.

We have to make some sort of distinction. If someone believes, and tells us that life on Earth was created supernaturally by God. I think it is safe to say they are a creationist. Their views on evolution are irrelevant at this stage.

The problem with WLC is that he wont tell us what he actually believes, that is why we are having this discussion right now. He likes his middle ground where he can't be accused of not accepting basic scientific facts, but at the same time bash biology with whatever creationist canards he likes.

Anyway, if he accepts evolution as much as he leads us to believe. I don't see why he would be propagating intelligent design as a valid theory and actively debating against honest biologists about work they do in their own field. I think it's safe to say if WLC applied the same amount of criticism he applied to evolutionary theory, to intelligent design... He wouldn't come to the conclusion he does. He has double standards IMO and if he wasn't a creationist of any form I don't see why he would feel the need to give his fans this illusion of an actual scientific disagreement where there is none.

Might be a bit harsh because it would be nice if more Christians gradually accepted more aspects of biology. Theologians picking on valid science gets me annoyed though

[Ihavenofingerprints]

So is the OP suggesting that Dawkins' declining to debate with Craig is equivalent to Craig declining to come to this forum? Mmm, somehow, that doesn't quite ring true.

I don't think Shrunk is drawing a parallel between the two. I think it's more about mocking the constant harassment and "empty chair" nonsense WLC employed last month.

These debates are just entertainment. Whether or not they ever do debate wont prove anything (other than how inflated both their ego's are).

[Shrunk]

So is the OP suggesting that Dawkins' declining to debate with Craig is equivalent to Craig declining to come to this forum?

Not really. My main point is that Craig and his supporters look silly continually trying to hound Dawkins into a debate, and making it look like Dawkins is somehow obliged to do so. Dawkins has made his reasons clear why debating Craig is not a worthwhile use of his time. That should be the end of it. If Craig expects us to simply accept his explanation that debating us is beneath him, he should still extend that courtesy to others.

[GakuseiDon]

We have to make some sort of distinction. If someone believes, and tells us that life on Earth was created supernaturally by God. I think it is safe to say they are a creationist. Their views on evolution are irrelevant at this stage.

As long as the definition of "creationist" is consistent, I don't see a problem with that. I'm thinking most on this board though would not see as valid a definition of "Creationist" as including someone holding a belief in evolution.

The problem with WLC is that he wont tell us what he actually believes, that is why we are having this discussion right now. He likes his middle ground where he can't be accused of not accepting basic scientific facts, but at the same time bash biology with whatever creationist canards he likes.

Craig DOES tell us what he believes. He believes that the universe is 14 billion years old, that creatures -- including man -- evolved, but the current evolutionary theory, neo-Darwinism, is 'surprisingly weak'.

I think it's safe to say if WLC applied the same amount of criticism he applied to evolutionary theory, to intelligent design... He wouldn't come to the conclusion he does. He has double standards IMO and if he wasn't a creationist of any form I don't see why he would feel the need to give his fans this illusion of an actual scientific disagreement where there is none.

Might be a bit harsh because it would be nice if more Christians gradually accepted more aspects of biology. Theologians picking on valid science gets me annoyed though

I don't think it's harsh. Craig is not a scientist; he can only embarrass himself by arguing neo-Darwinism against scientists like Dawkins, just as Dawkins would embarrass himself arguing philosophy against philosophers like Craig.

[Shrunk]

There is evolution as a fact and the THEORY of evolution. Craig does not deny that evolution occurred. He is questioning the prevailing theory of evolution ("Darwinism" or "gradualism"), something even evolutionists (like the late Stephen Jay Gould, for example) do.

That's a serious misrepresentation of Craig's position, and that of other ID creationists. He is not just denying the specific Darwinian mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and gradualism. He is saying that the scientific evidence demonstrates that naturalistic processes of any sort cannot produce life forms of the sort we see on earth. That it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by God - er, "an intelligent designer."

That is creationism. Period. Full stop. The courts have even said so.

Suppose someone says "Naturalistic forces are not enough to explain how objects fall to earth. There are tiny angels that God sends down to pull thing down to the ground and hold them there." Even though he accepts the fact that things fall, would you say he accepts the existence of gravity?

[Mr.Samsa]

'Creationism' is just a broad term that refers to the belief that life was created by god. You can be a young earth creationist, who believes god created the world as it is a few thousand years ago, or an old earth creationist who believes that god created the world billions of years ago. The latter includes those who think that life was created "fully formed" (i.e. as it is now), those who believe in "kinds" that allow for some adaptation but not speciation, and those who believe that god set up the foundation for evolution to occur.

I have never ever seen any old earth Creationist claim that life was created "fully formed" as it is now, 14 billion years ago. Which group do you have in mind?

I think a lot the "day-age" and "gap" creationists fit this mold - both believe in the genesis account, with the former believing that the "day" referenced in the bible is not a standard 24-hour day, and the latter believing that there were extended gaps between each regular day discussed in genesis. Some theistic evolutionists (evolutionary creationists) believe in one of those interpretations of genesis, but a lot of the people who accept these explanations don't accept that evolution occurred at all, which suggests to me that they believe they were created fully formed (e.g. man out of dirt, etc).

The last one there is theistic evolution, which is also known as evolutionary creationism. It was termed by Eugnie Scott, and used by other groups like TalkOrigins etc, so I don't think we need to inform the people involved in the evolution-creationism debate as it's already well-known there.

We should, since they seem to be doing it wrong if "Creationism" can accommodate evolution.

I think there is a difference between what wikipedia seems to call "literal creationism", and the broader technical definition of 'creationism'. In the evolution-creationism debate, most scientists are debating against people who don't accept evolution occurred, which is what the creationists with political agendas believe (i.e. the ones who want to get creationism taught in science classes). As the wikipedia and TalkOrigins pages point out though, the evolution-creationism debate is really a continuum of positions with some overlap, so (whilst confusing) it can still be accurate to point out that Ken Miller is a creationist who debates creationists. He believes in the creation of life by god, but he debates against the creationists who deny the evidence behind evolution.

I don't think many scientists, or even interested laymen, really care about people who accept the science behind evolution but still believe in some vague handiwork of a god to kick-start it all, even if they ultimately disagree (however, of course some still argue that they are no better than the literal creationists). If Craig is a theistic evolutionist (i.e. accepts that evolution occurs) then I think it's technically accurate to call him a creationist, but probably misleading. From what I've read, and given his support of ID, I'm skeptical that he doesn't slot more into a traditional creationist position though rather than a Ken Miller theistic evolution position.

With that said, whilst I can understand terming such a person a 'creationist', I do find it a little unfair as theistic evolution is a reasonable enough position for someone with a belief in god as it doesn't require them to reject scientific facts or dishonestly engage in debates over the term 'theory' etc.

That's right, but I think people here want to define "Creationism" as "Whatever William Lane Craig believes".

Yeah, it just seems difficult to nail down what he actually believes. I know I've seen videos in the past where, if that was the only time I'd seen him comment on the issue, then I'd swear that he was an obvious creationist. And then, in others, he seems to take a more sensible and scientifically valid approach. So I can certainly understand the confusion over where he stands on this. The problem (in my opinion) is that because his art is to employ the gift of the gab, rather than present solid arguments or facts, he's forced to play to his audience regardless of what he truly believes. This means that in debates where the audience are largely conservative christians, then he has to push the ID card as much as possible in order to win the debate, and when the audience are university students or general intellectuals, then he has to push the "evolution is fact and no-one can deny that" card. That's the thing with Craig - it's all rhetoric, misdirection and fancy footwork, rather than any real substance.

[Shrunk]

We have to make some sort of distinction. If someone believes, and tells us that life on Earth was created supernaturally by God. I think it is safe to say they are a creationist. Their views on evolution are irrelevant at this stage.

As long as the definition of "creationist" is consistent, I don't see a problem with that. I'm thinking most on this board though would not see as valid a definition of "Creationist" as including someone holding a belief in evolution.

What part of "The idea that bats and sponges could have evolved from a common ancestor by mutation and natural selection is so improbable that the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth before it could have happened" do you not understand? Those are not the words of someone who accepts evolution. If he accepts common ancestry, he thinks it happens because Baby Jesus comes down and fiddles with the genomes of bats and sponges.

The definition of a creationist is someone who believes that the forms of life extent on earth could not have arisent without the direct intervention of God. Craig is one of those.

[Animavore]

Yeah, it just seems difficult to nail down what he actually believes. I know I've seen videos in the past where, if that was the only time I'd seen him comment on the issue, then I'd swear that he was an obvious creationist. And then, in others, he seems to take a more sensible and scientifically valid approach.

It seems to depend on who he's talking to. Like when he's talking to a nod-the-head-sagely Chrisitian only audience he continues on his evidences for God from the KCA to "We know in our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (or something like that) but in debates he drops that 'evidence' out (and the empty tomb line).

He's a slippery character alright.

[Shrunk]

Yeah, it just seems difficult to nail down what he actually believes. I know I've seen videos in the past where, if that was the only time I'd seen him comment on the issue, then I'd swear that he was an obvious creationist. And then, in others, he seems to take a more sensible and scientifically valid approach. So I can certainly understand the confusion over where he stands on this. The problem (in my opinion) is that because his art is to employ the gift of the gab, rather than present solid arguments or facts, he's forced to play to his audience regardless of what he truly believes. This means that in debates where the audience are largely conservative christians, then he has to push the ID card as much as possible in order to win the debate, and when the audience are university students or general intellectuals, then he has to push the "evolution is fact and no-one can deny that" card. That's the thing with Craig - it's all rhetoric, misdirection and fancy footwork, rather than any real substance.

Again, it seems quite clear to me what he believes. He believes in an old earth because he's able to reconcile that with his reading ot the Bible. He has no strong opinions on whether universal common ancestry exists for all organisms besides humans. It's not important to his position one way or another. Even if God did not create all current species at once in their current forms, it is still consistent with his creationist views that God directly intervenes supernaturally in the evolutionary process to allow speciation to take place, and he does not believe this could happen without this supernatural intervention. That puts him squarely and unambiguously in the intelligent design/creationist camp. He is by no stretch of the imagination a "theistic evolutionist" (I agree with you that this is more properly viewed as a form of creationism, even though that would confuse matters even further).

The only unanswered question for me is whether he accepts that humans share common ancestry with any other species. The doctrinal statement of the Talbot School of Theology is quite clear on what he is expected to believe, however:

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

So if Craig says he does accept common ancestry of humans, he is lying to someone.

[GakuseiDon]

There is evolution as a fact and the THEORY of evolution. Craig does not deny that evolution occurred. He is questioning the prevailing theory of evolution ("Darwinism" or "gradualism"), something even evolutionists (like the late Stephen Jay Gould, for example) do.

That's a serious misrepresentation of Craig's position, and that of other ID creationists. He is not just denying the specific Darwinian mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and gradualism. He is saying that the scientific evidence demonstrates that naturalistic processes of any sort cannot produce life forms of the sort we see on earth. That it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by God - er, "an intelligent designer."

Where does Craig state that "it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by an intelligent designer"?

Suppose someone says "Naturalistic forces are not enough to explain how objects fall to earth. There are tiny angels that God sends down to pull thing down to the ground and hold them there." Even though he accepts the fact that things fall, would you say he accepts the existence of gravity?

That's the theory of "Intelligent Falling":
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evange ... -int,1778/

Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

[Paul G]

He knows what it is.

[GakuseiDon]

I think a lot the "day-age" and "gap" creationists fit this mold - both believe in the genesis account, with the former believing that the "day" referenced in the bible is not a standard 24-hour day, and the latter believing that there were extended gaps between each regular day discussed in genesis. Some theistic evolutionists (evolutionary creationists) believe in one of those interpretations of genesis, but a lot of the people who accept these explanations don't accept that evolution occurred at all, which suggests to me that they believe they were created fully formed (e.g. man out of dirt, etc).

I've never come across such beliefs, though I'm not an expert so that means such beliefs don't exist. I'd love to see who argues that position, so if you can recall any details on how believes that I'd appreciate if you can post them.

I think there is a difference between what wikipedia seems to call "literal creationism", and the broader technical definition of 'creationism'. In the evolution-creationism debate, most scientists are debating against people who don't accept evolution occurred, which is what the creationists with political agendas believe (i.e. the ones who want to get creationism taught in science classes). As the wikipedia and TalkOrigins pages point out though, the evolution-creationism debate is really a continuum of positions with some overlap, so (whilst confusing) it can still be accurate to point out that Ken Miller is a creationist who debates creationists. He believes in the creation of life by god, but he debates against the creationists who deny the evidence behind evolution.

I don't think many scientists, or even interested laymen, really care about people who accept the science behind evolution but still believe in some vague handiwork of a god to kick-start it all, even if they ultimately disagree (however, of course some still argue that they are no better than the literal creationists). If Craig is a theistic evolutionist (i.e. accepts that evolution occurs) then I think it's technically accurate to call him a creationist, but probably misleading. From what I've read, and given his support of ID, I'm skeptical that he doesn't slot more into a traditional creationist position though rather than a Ken Miller theistic evolution position.

With that said, whilst I can understand terming such a person a 'creationist', I do find it a little unfair as theistic evolution is a reasonable enough position for someone with a belief in god as it doesn't require them to reject scientific facts or dishonestly engage in debates over the term 'theory' etc.

That's right, but I think people here want to define "Creationism" as "Whatever William Lane Craig believes".

Yeah, it just seems difficult to nail down what he actually believes. I know I've seen videos in the past where, if that was the only time I'd seen him comment on the issue, then I'd swear that he was an obvious creationist. And then, in others, he seems to take a more sensible and scientifically valid approach. So I can certainly understand the confusion over where he stands on this.

I don't know why there is confusion over what Craig actually believes. He's fairly straight forward about it. As you write above, people have varying notions of what "creationist" can mean. I suggest the confusion is a result of trying to pin the label "Creationist" on him.

[Shrunk]

There is evolution as a fact and the THEORY of evolution. Craig does not deny that evolution occurred. He is questioning the prevailing theory of evolution ("Darwinism" or "gradualism"), something even evolutionists (like the late Stephen Jay Gould, for example) do.

That's a serious misrepresentation of Craig's position, and that of other ID creationists. He is not just denying the specific Darwinian mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and gradualism. He is saying that the scientific evidence demonstrates that naturalistic processes of any sort cannot produce life forms of the sort we see on earth. That it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by God - er, "an intelligent designer."

Where does Craig state that "it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by an intelligent designer"?

In that Ayala debate I linked, for one. Almost all of his part of that debate consists of his repeating the standard arguments by all the usual figures of ID, like Dembski and Behe, and uncritically presenting it as legitimate scientific evidence.

OK, strictly speaking the topic of the debate is whether ID is "viable", not whether it is correct. But that's just splitting semantic hairs for the purpose of debate. It's obvious where his beliefs lie.

Look, he says outright that he is "agnostic" about evolution. If someone says he is "agnostic" about whether the earth is flat, or whether microorganisms exist, or whether or not lightening is produced by Zeus, would you say they accept the current scientific understanding of those subjects?

[Nicko]

I don't know why there is confusion over what Craig actually believes.

Neither do I. Shrunk pretty well cleared that one up. Craig signed a doctrinal statement professing creationism.

He's fairly straight forward about it.

Well, he can be a bit coy depending on which audience he's playing to. But I suppose you can't get much more straightforward than signing a doctrinal statement professing creationism.

As you write above, people have varying notions of what "creationist" can mean.

Professing that God actively created life, directed any evolution that may have occurred, and that humans share no common ancestry with any other organism on the planet would seem to be covering all the bases in order to be regarded as a Creationist. You know, like it says in the Talbot School of Theology's Doctrinal Statement. That he signed.

I suggest the confusion is a result of trying to pin the label "Creationist" on him.

I, on the other hand, suggest that the confusion is a result of people ignoring the fact that he signed a doctrinal statement professing creationism.

[GakuseiDon]

That's a serious misrepresentation of Craig's position, and that of other ID creationists. He is not just denying the specific Darwinian mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and gradualism. He is saying that the scientific evidence demonstrates that naturalistic processes of any sort cannot produce life forms of the sort we see on earth. That it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by God - er, "an intelligent designer."

Where does Craig state that "it can be scientifically demonstrated that they could only have been produced by an intelligent designer"?

In that Ayala debate I linked, for one. Almost all of his part of that debate consists of his repeating the standard arguments by all the usual figures of ID, like Dembski and Behe, and uncritically presenting it as legitimate scientific evidence.

What's the actual quote that he uses? Does he claim that ID has been **scientifically** demonstrated? I'm not aware that he has.

OK, strictly speaking the topic of the debate is whether ID is "viable", not whether it is correct. But that's just splitting semantic hairs for the purpose of debate. It's obvious where his beliefs lie.

Look, he says outright that he is "agnostic" about evolution. If someone says he is "agnostic" about whether the earth is flat, or whether microorganisms exist, or whether or not lightening is produced by Zeus, would you say they accept the current scientific understanding of those subjects?

He is agnostic about the current theory of evolution. AFAICS he is not agnostic that life forms have evolved.

But it would be good if people could actually quote Craig. Not much point responding to what people think Craig may have said or meant.

[GakuseiDon]

I don't know why there is confusion over what Craig actually believes.

Neither do I. Shrunk pretty well cleared that one up. Craig signed a doctrinal statement professing creationism.

Perfect! Exactly what we want. So where did he do that, then?

[Shrunk]

I don't know why there is confusion over what Craig actually believes. He's fairly straight forward about it. As you write above, people have varying notions of what "creationist" can mean. I suggest the confusion is a result of trying to pin the label "Creationist" on him.

No, there is no confusion over what "creationism" means in this context, and whether Craig is a creationist.

Craig's position is straight-up intelligent design. And ID is creationism. Scientists know that, and ID proponents know it too. However, the latter try to create confusion over the issue and convince people that ID is not creationism so they can sneak God around the Constitution and into schools. I'm suprised you let yourself fall for that.

[GakuseiDon]

I don't know why there is confusion over what Craig actually believes. He's fairly straight forward about it. As you write above, people have varying notions of what "creationist" can mean. I suggest the confusion is a result of trying to pin the label "Creationist" on him.

No, there is no confusion over what "creationism" means in this context, and whether Craig is a creationist.

Craig's position is straight-up intelligent design. And ID is creationism. Scientists know that, and ID proponents know it too. However, the latter try to create confusion over the issue and convince people that ID is not creationism so they can sneak God around the Constitution and into schools. I'm suprised you let yourself fall for that.

Well, if that Craig's position, then you are correct. However, he says here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8P-V3Iqxk

Now, I have to admit that I don't know if a design inference in the field of biology is justified...

Prominent ID theorists... espouse the same view of evolutionary history as Prof Ayala. They agree that all life is descended from a common primordial ancestor.