Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 17:04:46 EDT

Hello David,
  The issue is not whether or not paying attention to criticism is useful. (Of course it is, and I do it also as you do.) Pim has never repented from his excesses and will not, from all appearances, admit of anything, let me say it louder, ANYTHING positive about intelligent design theory or the movement of scholars and scientists associated with ID, many of whom are Christians. He simply condemns them across the board as ignorant and worse, as deceptive. I for one disagree, and further have challenged Pim on his 'universal evolutionism.' He has never, not once repented or expressed a glimpse of humility, but rather flaunted Science as if it (and he as its messenger) holds all the answers of the meaning, purpose and value of human existence (using St. Augustine as his personal theological message).
  My question remains unanswered: why continue to highlight critics of ID who are anti-theists, even for their ‘scientific’ value, if it contradicts the cause of Christendom? Why not highlight the work of Christian scholars and scientists on the topic of altruism instead of socio-biologists and evolutionary psychologists? Again, why not? It is one thing to be kept abreast of criticisms from anti-theists and another thing to use those views as a platform for one’s own obviously obsessive criticisms of intelligent design theories. I must agree with those here who ask why Pim doesn’t actually contribute something instead of propogandizing the criticisms of others. Even if he doesn’t agree with Meyers, Dawkins and Avalos, where is Pim’s contribution to knowledge? Can ASA not call Pim to account instead of listening to repetitive criticisms which have been heard ad nauseam as nothing more than anti-ID plus news about anti-ID and nothing more? Instead, if he should commit a
 positive Christian contribution, it would likely be welcomed.

David Opderbeck <> wrote: I'm going to partly agree with Pim here. It is useful for us to pay attention to criticism and sometimes to repent of things that have lead to legitimate criticism (see Merold Westphal's "Suspicion & Faith: The Religious Uses of Atheism" for some good examples of this).
  But there is a difference between listening to and learning from critics and lacking discernment when critics are making arguments that are overreaching and unfair or endorsing the critics' ultimate conclusions. It's one thing to let folks like Meyers, Dawkins and Avalos provoke reflection; it's another to essentially agree with their twisted assessment of Christianity and religious faith.

  On 8/30/07, PvM <> wrote: The real question is do YOU NOT visit such places to understand 'the
rest of the story'? But regardless of the anti-theistic nature of
Myers, his blog contains excellent contributions to science.

As to your final question, the answer is simple: Not enough time and priority.

What I find interesting is how a posting in which I show the vacuity
of Behe's claims, somehow is turned into a whining session about them
mean atheists. Come on guys, is this the best we can do when
confronted with this 'nonsense' by Christians?

John Walley asks

<quote>I'm curious, in your worldview, is this a good thing and is
this the logical outcome for our kids from having an understanding of
true science free from religious prejudices and the scientific vacuity
of ID?

As a Christian Pim, do you not feel the need to also counter some of
the atheist prejudices of PZ and others? Would you consider that this
is a symptom of moral or spiritual vacuity and what should we do about
this in our society?

I am not sure what atheist prejudices you have in mind. I do not care
too much about what atheists have to say about religion, why should I.
Is Skatje's decision to start a atheistic-humanistic club at her
university a good thing or even a logical outcome ? Certainly the
scientific vacuity of ID may lead some to come to flawed conclusions
about Christianity but in the end, Christianity has nothing to fear of
science. Is it a logical outcome, perhaps, it is a necessary outcome,
of course not.
My focus at this moment is on science, and the cost to science (and
faith) of actions of Christians.

Examples include global warming and the human cause deniers, who seem
to be intent on ignoring good science in favor of ... what exactly?
Other examples include YECism, and most varieties of intelligent
Or in this thread, the embarassing actions of Janice who seems to
have abandoned any attempt to portray herself as a Christian.
Is it worth it Janice?

On 8/30/07, Gregory Arago <> wrote:
> Do you actually visit such places on the internet that put out anti-theistic
> rhetoric regularly PIM? You still haven't taken up my challenge to give
> voice to Christian views of altruism instead of those of sociobiologists and
> evolutionary psychologists. One might wonder: why not?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 30 17:05:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 30 2007 - 17:05:06 EDT