Thank God for Evolution

[Symbology]

I have recently been introduced to Michael Dowd's set of theories, and would be interested in this groups opinion of them. To my observation they seem to keep both the Evolutionists (at least the Theistic ones) and the other religions reasonably happy.

 

It is a compromise, but one that seems quite viable. The big challenge of course would be from the atheistic Evolutionists. I'm thinking the Intelligent Design folks may have trouble disagreeing with his points here too, since he is their key tenet that there is something behind all this. He is just not including the "and it all began at once a few thousand years ago" premise.

 

Thanks,

Symbo

[buddyzen]

wow i feel horrible for people that are missled tisk tisk. I am sorry to inform you but evolution and religeon together does not exist................ that just contradicts itself like that religeon jews for jesus

[CraigD]

I have recently been introduced to Michael Dowd's set of theories, and would be interested in this groups opinion of them.

From the linked FAQ page by him, I get that Michael Dowd is a pantheist. Compare this from his FAQ page:

“God,” from an evolutionary standpoint, is nothing so trivial or inconsequential as a supreme landlord residing off the planet and outside the universe—an otherworldly entity whose primary business is engaging in unnatural acts (supernatural interventions). As I’m using the term, “God” cannot possibly be less than a sacred, proper name for Ultimate Reality, the largest nested whole—that One Supreme Reality which transcends yet includes all other realities and makes possible all forms of creativity.

to this from the linked wikipedia article on pantheism:

Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God") is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God and This is permeating the world. In short: "God is in the whole"

Spinoza is considered to have been a pantheist, as was Einstein. Though I usually describe myself to theists as an atheist because I believe it is easier for most of them to understand, I also consider myself a panthiest.

To my observation they seem to keep both the Evolutionists (at least the Theistic ones) and the other religions reasonably happy.

 

It is a compromise, but one that seems quite viable. The big challenge of course would be from the atheistic Evolutionists. I'm thinking the Intelligent Design folks may have trouble disagreeing with his points here too, since he is their key tenet that there is something behind all this. He is just not including the "and it all began at once a few thousand years ago" premise.

I don’t believe Dowd is compromising in the least in his views, and conclude almost exactly the opposite of Symbology: that atheists with scientific worldviews will find Dowd’s message more acceptable than will theists.

 

Given his statements like:

In my opinion, the courts are right to reject the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, at least in science classes. But I predict that the perspective offered in Thank God for Evolution will be embraced by public school officials and the courts alike. Having endorsements from five Noble laureates and other luminaries across the theological and philosophical spectrum, including Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, should help. In contrast, I can’t imagine any of these science and religion leaders backing a book espousing intelligent design. (To be clear, I'm advocating just teaching science in science classes, but in humanities or "worldviews" classes also showing how the very same science can enrich a multitude of religious and philosophical perspectives.)

I don’t believe the most committed ID folk will have trouble disagreeing with these and Dowd’s other points. I think Dowd will have great trouble winning religious fundamentalists to his viewpoint, and will likely be branded an atheist by them.

 

I’m delighted to hear of Dowd and his and his wife’s work, and wish them success. IMHO, his approach of reconciling religion and science via the premise that both should describe the same reality is superb, if very difficult to sell to the extreme religious political right. I’ll sing in his choir anytime.

[C1ay]

Michael Dowd is simply fixated on a need for a first 'cause'. The Universe and nature don't need a cause, like some God made it all happen, in order to face the scrutiny of science in its search for truth. If there's a God and it caused it then that's fine but I want to see scientific evidence of such, not someone's made up story. There is ZERO scientific evidence for any God or first cause behind nature and the evolution of it that exists. I'll entertain the idea when they come up with some EVIDENCE to support such claims.

[freeztar]

While I can certainly appreciate Dowd's goals, it seems like just another shade of lipstick on the pig. His message seems most important for theistic individuals who have yet to embrace, or reconcile, evolution with their brand of theism.

 

I agree with Craig's impression that Dowd is pantheistic, which is a bit odd as he is a self-proclaimed Christian.

 

In any case, it doesn't really do anything for me. What's wrong with science for science sake? Why must there be a merging? :)

[CraigD]

Michael Dowd is simply fixated on a need for a first 'cause'.

What of Dowd’s writing or reports about him leads you to this conclusion, C1ay?

 

My exposure to Dowd consists entirely of the his “A conversation with Rev. Michael Dowd” and his wikipedia article, which I read just this morning, but all of that leads me to conclude, as I did above, that he’s a pretty straightforward pantheist.

 

Pantheists tend to be a little superstitious, not to the extent of believing in the literal physical existence of talking snakes and donkeys, supernaturally burning bushes and miraculous resurrection of the dead, but usually in ascribing some sort of purpose to the universe. Dowd appears to be in this camp, as shown by statements from “conversation” like

In my opinion, the single most significant insight gained from a soul-satisfying interpretation of the epic of evolution would be what I call “the nested emergent nature of divine creativity.” What I’m pointing to with this phrase is the now widely accepted understanding that everything did not come into being all at once, but, rather, emerged over great expanses of time and in a nested fashion: subatomic particles within atoms, within molecules, within cells, within organisms, within ecosystems, and so on, like nesting dolls—each also part of larger nested realities: planets within solar systems, within galaxies, within the Universe as a whole.

and

When I speak of evolutionary emergence I’m referring to the fact that ‘the Universe’ (Nature/Time/Reality/God) has consistently, though not without setbacks, produced larger and wider scales of cooperation and complexity over time. In the human realm, this ‘holy trajectory of evolution’ has tended to evoke broader circles of caring, compassion, and commitment as societies have become increasingly larger and more interdependent—from families and clans, to tribes, to chiefdoms and kingdoms, to theocracies and early nations, to corporate states, global markets, social democracies, and now the World Wide Web. This ‘nested emergent nature of reality’ is a central unifying concept in my book

He’s suggesting that the laws of nature that give us the time, space, and the fundamental particles of quantum physics have a built-in tendency to produce increasingly complex systems, from atoms to stars and planets to biosystems to the social systems of biological organisms like us humans (though one might argue that social systems aren’t as complex as biological ones) - an idea familiar to anyone acquainted with science philosophy such as the anthropic principle – and that “the laws of nature” and “the will of God” are synonyms.

The Universe and nature don't need a cause, like some God made it all happen, in order to face the scrutiny of science in its search for truth.

Nothing I’ve read by or about Dowd says anything about the origin or cause of the universe, only the above mentioned increasing complexity and purpose of it. It directly expresses the belief that God didn’t make it all happen, rather God is it all happening.

If there's a God and it caused it then that's fine but I want to see scientific evidence of such, not someone's made up story. The is ZERO scientific evidence for any God or first cause behind nature and the evolution of it that exists. I'll entertain the idea when they come up with some EVIDENCE to support such claims.

In typical pantheist fashion, Dowd’s defining the “God” as synonymous with “the universe”, so the existence of the universe is proof of God’s existence.

 

Some science types, especially mathematical ones, like Einstein, are comfortable with this definition. Some atheists are also, because they consider it equivalent to denying the existence of any traditional diety. In my experience, most theists reject it, because they require God to have specific attributes such as those stated in religious texts.

 

I agree with Craig's impression that Dowd is pantheistic, which is a bit odd as he is a self-proclaimed Christian.

It is odd, but mainly because we base our idea of “a Christian” on previous experience. Dowd appears to be redefining the idea in a not unprecedented, but still radical way.

 

He appears to me to be interpreting Christian tenets as very metaphorical. For instance, in his “interview” document, he compares ritual eating of the body of Christ in the Holy Communion to participation in a ecological food chain – not, I think, a nonsensical comparison, but certainly a giant metaphorical stretch for either a biologist or a Catholic.

 

It’s also worth noting that not only is Dowd a Christian, he “was raised Catholic”. Compared to the protestant Christians with which many of us are more acquainted, Catholics can be surprisingly liberal in their interpretations. Historically, the Catholic church not only resisted the typical protestant position of “what’s in the Bible is what’s true”, but actively and sometimes bloodily resisted the idea that, other than clergy, Catholics should read or even be aware of the existence of Bibles.

 

What's wrong with science for science sake? Why must there be a merging? :shrug:

IHMO, science for science’s sake is fine, provide you’re a scientist or at least informed by science. Most people, however, are not, and at present, are made even less likely to be by growing antiscientific religious sentiments and doctrine.

 

In 4-5/2009 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Elizabeth Sherman makes a convincing argument, I think, for why it matters that, science “informs the decision we make as a country, a people, a world”: when we don’t people needlessly suffer. She gives examples of how ignorance of science causes suffering such as people in third world countries avoiding free polio vaccinations because of the scientifically uninformed belief that such vaccinations cause the disease, leading to rising rates of this terrible disease in these countries (an version of her essay slightly different than the one appearing in SI can be read at http:// http://www.epa.gov/region1/neaeb2007/pdfs/presentation%20pdfs/NEAEB%202007%20Thurs%20PM%20plenary%202%20Sherman.pdf )

 

IMHO, we must accept as a sociological given that a majority of people in most countries are theists, but reject the assumption that, because they are theists, their decisions cannot be informed by science. Pantheism like Dowd’s, I think, promotes this – though I fear his impact may not be as great as he hopes.

[Symbology]

I don’t believe Dowd is compromising in the least in his views, and conclude almost exactly the opposite of Symbology: that atheists with scientific worldviews will find Dowd’s message more acceptable than will theists.

 

CraigD,

 

I wasn't meaning to imply that Dowd was compromising his views. I only meant that this theory seems to be a compromise between the Theists (maybe even some Creationists) and Evolutionists.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[Symbology]

While I can certainly appreciate Dowd's goals, it seems like just another shade of lipstick on the pig. His message seems most important for theistic individuals who have yet to embrace, or reconcile, evolution with their brand of theism.

 

I agree with Craig's impression that Dowd is pantheistic, which is a bit odd as he is a self-proclaimed Christian.

 

I agree with you and CraigD that he seems to qualify as a Pantheist.

 

In any case, it doesn't really do anything for me. What's wrong with science for science sake? Why must there be a merging? :shrug:

 

Well due to the fact they seem to be headed towards a path to censure and eventually trying to kill each other, I think his attempts to quiet the storm are admirable.

 

Though one thing I have learned from many different sources, is that being in the crossfire tends to be the absolute last place one to wants to be.

[buddyzen]

i don't ever recall scientists burning priests on a cross .......... o_____O lol

[C1ay]

What of Dowd’s writing or reports about him leads you to this conclusion, C1ay?

 

First he begins with, "Doesn’t Darwin’s theory portray a rather cruel and pointless universe?"

 

So what if it does? Why does there need to be a point to the Universe? A reason? Why suggest that there is when we have no observable evidence to indicate that is the case?

 

Nothing I’ve read by or about Dowd says anything about the origin or cause of the universe, only the above mentioned increasing complexity and purpose of it. It directly expresses the belief that God didn’t make it all happen, rather God is it all happening....

 

I don't think that view is consistent with Dowd's remarks here:

 

“God,” from an evolutionary standpoint, is nothing so trivial or inconsequential as a supreme landlord residing off the planet and outside the universe—an otherworldly entity whose primary business is engaging in unnatural acts (supernatural interventions). As I’m using the term, “God” cannot possibly be less than a sacred, proper name for Ultimate Reality, the largest nested whole—that One Supreme Reality which transcends yet includes all other realities and makes possible all forms of creativity. And because we are part of the whole and cannot get outside the whole to examine it, different peoples at different times, living in different parts of the world, reflecting on different plants, different animals, different terrain, and different climates, would inevitably have used different metaphors and analogies to describe the nature of this Ultimacy. Naturally, they would have told different stories about how to relate meaningfully to It/Him/Her. Understanding religious differences is hardly more complicated than comprehending this fact and pondering its implications.

 

He believes his God makes possible the Universe we live in. Here it doesn't appear to me that he believes God is nature but that God transcends nature. A minor quibble but still supportive of the idea that the is a Supreme Being greater than nature itself, i.e. supernatural.