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

From: George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com <Murphygmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 10:24:49 EDT

The fact that Davies doesn't & Hoyle didn't believe that design was the work of the God revealed in Christ is significant.  (I'm not sure about Rees' beliefs.)  As you point out, there are other ways (e.g., multiverse) to account for them.  We see them as the work of the triune God Trinity only when we have come to faith in that God through God's historical revelation.

I don't think God has any commitment to "scientism," but do believe that God's action in the world is characterized by the kenosis shown in the Incarnation.

Shalom,

George

> > > Again, ID here is summarized as only the biological > components that can be supposedly reduced. But as a physicist George, what > about the arguments of design in the universe from Martin Rees, Hoyle and Daives?  > > > Don’t the scriptures give us reason > to consider that these aspects of design are valid? > >   > > Although they as well require them to be > mixed with faith for us to appreciate their lesson. Otherwise, we could say > they are insufficient and “scientifically vacuous” as we could > always appeal to multiple universes and us just getting lucky if we wanted to > be strictly scientific about it. > >   > > This is the danger in assuming that God > shares the same commitment to scientism that we do. > >   > > John > >   > > -----Original Message----- > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf > Of George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 > 11:41 PM > To: John Walley; PvM > Cc: asa@calvin.edu > Subject: RE: [asa] Stupid/Dumb > Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science > >   > > There is not the slightest scriptural reason to think > that the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade are part of "God's > chosen methodology of revealing himself to humanity."   > More generally, there is no scriptural reason to think that God either creates > or sustains life miraculously - i.e., other than through natural > processes.  & more generally still, the whole notion that God's > "chosen methodology of revealing himself to humanity" is through > scientific study of the world.  That methodology is his actions (both > natural & miraculous - please note that I do not deny the latter) in the > history of Israel which point to & culminate in Jesus Christ. > > Theologia naturalis delenda est! > > George > >   > > > > > >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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] > On > Behalf Of PvM > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:09 PM > To: > (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan > Cc: asa@calvin.edu > 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: > > > From the THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY -- > > > > > [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 > DESIGN > > needs to be tested against the > competing intelligent design theory of REAL > > 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. > > > > > http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > > George L. Murphy > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe > asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > > > > >


George L. Murphy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Sun Oct 21 10:25:45 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 10:25:46 EDT