Re: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: PvM <>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 00:36:06 EDT

Who is conflating PN and MN I wonder? For all we know God is
proclaiming His glory through the bacterial flagella, or perhaps
through malaria which according to Behe may very well ave been
Despite all these great testimonies to God, ID somehow seems to focus
on some pretty destructive components of nature. Now historically
religion has searched and 'found' God(s) in the destructive powers of
nature but I believe science has shown us a beautiful creation
everywhere and we need not delegate God to areas of our ignorance.
It's exactly because anyone can find support in science for their
faith that faith is so different from science. Rather than fear
science or materialism why not focus on what science is telling us and
realize that science has little in common with materialism?

Scientism, materialism are all irrelevant terms here. We are
discussing the issue of ID when it comes to science and why ID by most
standards is not just scientifically without content or infertile but
also ID is by most standards a science killer. After all, after
concluding 'design' what is a scientist but to do? After all, design
is basically equivalent to an admission that science has not addressed
the issue succesfully.

Are miracles really that important to Christian faith? Or do they
provide us with useful parables ?

Regardless, the topic was ID and ignorance and the original 'argument'
was just plain wrong. Surely if ID wishes to defend itself, it should
try some real arguments rather than showing a total misunderstanding
of science?

So what has ID done for science lately? Has there been any update from
the usual "Darwinism cannot explain x ?

On 10/20/07, John Walley <> wrote:
> But Jesus' miracles were not intended to be about science either and
> attempting to make it so misses the point then as now. Applying this same
> standard to ID may accurately yield it as non-scientific, but at the expense
> of the objective God is trying to communicate, assuming God is revealing
> Himself in His Creation through these Design characteristics.
> And now as then, most believers accept this assumption and see this a
> logical inference. Who are we to say that is not good enough because it is
> not "scientific"? This is as prejudiced as the YEC's who insist on a
> creation without death before the fall.
> Maybe this is the way God is intending to reveal Himself in nature? Maybe He
> doesn't feel obligated to accommodate your conflated definitions of PN and
> MN?
> The following are the closing paragraphs of a chapter on "The Theology of an
> Evolving Creation" in a new book due out next year by my friend Mark
> Whorton, author of "Peril in Paradise", which I think captures this
> ideological divide.
> " But for those who wonder if God would have done it this way, consider this
> in closing. Concurrence is consistent with a God who "hides Himself"
> (Isaiah 45:15), One who says that it is only by faith that we know the
> worlds were prepared by the word of God (Heb 11:3). To please Him we must
> come to Him by faith (Hebrews 11:6), and for faith to be legitimate there
> must be plausible alternatives. There must be mystery along with knowledge.
> It seems consistent that He would create in a way that His nature is evident
> to all, but nonetheless not so explicitly evident (as in unmistakable
> intervention) that it cannot be rejected. Recall that Jesus taught in
> parables, praising the Father that He hid the truth from the wise and the
> learned and gave it only to a select few. It seems consistent that He might
> create the world in concurrence with natural processes in a way that as we
> come to understand how it happened, it would allow Davies to say "The
> impression of design is overwhelming" (NOTE: Paul Davies, The Cosmic
> Blueprint ) while allowing Dawkins to say that living things only "give the
> appearance of having been designed" {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker,
> 1996, p. 1}. Could it be that in order to legitimize faith's reward and
> justify judgment of those who reject Him, God created in a way that would
> permit the intellectual fulfillment of atheists? "
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PvM []
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:33 PM
> To: John Walley
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science
> Sigh. The logic surrounding John's 'arguments' is rather poor as it
> first of all suggests that I am dismissing the miracles of Jesus when
> I am discussing issues of science here. Sure, we can all speculate
> that God suspended natural law for his miracles, although that's by
> itself a suspect argument but in the end, science cannot deal with the
> supernatural as it explains everything and thus nothing.
> If John wants to approach this issue from a theological perspective, a
> perspective which according to John seems more appropriate when
> discussing ID creationism, then we agree that God revealed himself in
> part through "miracles".
> If John had however noticed the context of the discussion then he
> would have realized that this was a discussion of science not
> theology. Perhaps me mentioning ID may have caused John some confusion
> and hence his theological response, and I cannot fault him for drawing
> the logical conclusion that ID is not really about science but about
> theology after all.
> In Christ.
> On 10/20/07, John Walley <> wrote:
> > >Of course, that ID is merely the set theoretic complement of regularity
> > >and chance shows that 'design' is not an explanation but rather a
> > >position of ignorance based on the fact that science cannot (yet)
> > >explain a particular feature.
> >
> >
> > This sounds like the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees rationalizing
> > and dismissing the miracles of Jesus. God is the author of our natural
> laws
> > and He chose exceptions to these laws that he worked at His will to be a
> > testimony to Him.
> >
> > And in fact for this correlation to be logical, God obviously intended a
> > common sense interpretation from the masses of His exceptions to the
> > standard laws to show His divine handiwork based on their improbability,
> not
> > an appeal to ignorance (this goes both ways) and a faith that science will
> > one day explain it.
> >
> > Thus Pim, your rabid ID bashing goes against God's chosen methodology of
> > revealing himself to humanity.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [] On
> > Behalf Of PvM
> > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:09 PM
> > To: (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence
> Science
> >
> > As George has already pointed out, this is a very inept response. Of
> > course, that ID is merely the set theoretic complement of regularity
> > and chance shows that 'design' is not an explanation but rather a
> > position of ignorance based on the fact that science cannot (yet)
> > explain a particular feature.
> >
> > I have invited many an ID activist to present their best explanation
> > for how the bacterial flagellum was 'designed' but given the fact that
> > there do exist plausible evolutionary explanations or hypotheses, ID
> > cannot even speak about the flagellum being designed. ID proponents
> > argue that these explanations are not detailed enough and that design
> > is still the best explanation, but that is an illogical position
> > because ID does not explain anything.
> >
> > What has ID to offer beyond 'design'? Nothing at all really. And the
> > proof is in the pudding so the speak as ID has yet to propose ANY
> > scientific explanation for what it claims is 'designed'.
> >
> > On 10/20/07, (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <> wrote:
> > >
> > > [my title] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science
> > >
> > > I chanced upon this very excellent article on intelligent design which
> I
> > > want to recommend to all who are open to intelligence design. Among
> other
> > > things, it explains why intelligent design is science, and that it makes
> > > predictions, and is falsifiable, and that the Darwinist theory of NO
> > > needs to be tested against the competing intelligent design theory of
> > > DESIGN, and that was what Darwin himself was doing. [But present-day
> > > Darwinists are obviously afraid to deal with intelligent design theory.]
> > >
> > > Let me quote just the following response to intelligent design being a
> > > "science stopper". I think this reply is most excellent and should put
> a
> > > stop to all "science stopper" allegations. Same for God-of-the-Gaps.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 21 00:37:04 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 00:37:04 EDT