Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Sat Mar 31 2007 - 23:15:03 EDT

What makes dialog difficult is the so-called political path that Pim
refers to. Just as Francis Collins believes a synthesis between
science and faith is possible, so also I believe a synthesis between
TE and ID is possible. For TEs such as myself it's not the substance
of ID that bothers me but some of the more strident rhetoric. For
example, cosmological ID is neutral to evolution and Collins used it
in the Fresh Air interview. Also, the inability of evolution to
explain the human conscience is also something that Collins stressed
that would be a point of common contact. Technically speaking this
doesn't point to an impersonal intelligent designer but it does point
to a personal Creator. These examples point to common points between
us -- and there are undoubtedly others -- that TE and ID can agree
upon even if we disagree about the value of irreducible or specified

But, as long as ID allows itself to be used by YEC as an anti-
evolutionary wedge then the dialog becomes difficult. It also
diminishes ID's witness because the charge that ID is merely a brand
of creationism sticks. It is the question of having a good witness
which all three camps share that is central to my personal concerns.
Pim keeps talking about scientific vacuity but my deepest commitments
are theological and not scientific. Again, my critique of ID stems
from what we have in common -- the desire to be good witnesses of
Jesus Christ -- and not what separates us. For example, at my alma
mater, Iowa State, Astronomy Professor Gonzales' ideas and personal
witness got unnecessarily tarred along with him being personally
attacked by the atheists on campus all because of the DI promoting
his work. Yes, I know the DI is an ID organization but it is so
enmeshed with YEC at least on the rhetorical level to be almost
indistinguishable from it. His ideas can be utterly compatible with
TE but there was definite guilt by association with YEC going on.
But that's the world. What is doubly unfortunate is that some of my
fellow TEs shunned him for the same bad logic.

In my opinion, Philip Johnson made a big mistake by having his big
tent only go in one direction. We all make mistakes and TE is not
blameless here in being equally frosty. So, if ID proponents are
willing to talk, so am I. We will be spending eternity together in
the next world so let's act like it in this one.

On Mar 31, 2007, at 8:28 PM, PvM wrote:

> What is so special about dialogue? ID has chosen its path, ignoring
> scientific dialogue and pursuing a political path. Dialogue was
> attempted and rejected at a scientific level. Perhaps willing
> Christians may attempt a dialogue based on theological concerns.
> On 3/31/07, Iain Strachan <> wrote:
>> Not at all. James asked whether we shall ever reach the point of
>> dialogue.
>> Clearly not with your attitude.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 31 23:14:23 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 23:14:23 EDT