[asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 13:09:46 EDT

What Davies and Hoyle believe about the source of the design is irrelevant.
The point is they recognize it and admit it as existing and even Dawkins
begrudgingly admits it appearance.

 

Similarly, this shared acceptance of this manifestly obvious truth that God
is the source of creation and our being was the same "methodology" that
Jesus used to establish his "supernatural" credentials. When He calmed the
sea, the disciples exclaimed in shock that "even the wind and waves obey
him" but they could have appealed to a scientifically reductionist physical
explanation.

 

When God spoke to Job from the whirlwind and asked him if he was there when
He laid the foundations of the earth, Job could have accurately and
scientifically responded that one day a naturalistic explanation for the
origin of the universe would be posited and universally accepted, but I
don't think that was the response God was looking for.

 

In both these cases and in all the other miracles, God assumed that those
that had "ears to hear" would rightly equate His supernatural exceptions
over otherwise regular natural laws with His power and His divine authority
although He knew there would be those who reject them due to hardness of
heart, even before scientism was conveniently handy to put a rational spin
on it.

 

Also the Pharisees denying the divine source of Jesus' miracles and instead
attributing them to Beelzebub was the context in which Jesus warned His
disciples of the grave consequences of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I
contend that it shouldn't be that hard to see that the enemy's plans today
are the same as then, to take the obvious spiritual truth of God being
manifest in His creation and with enough nuance and spin and pride and
arrogance, can convince people to reject this and replace it instead with
naturalistic abiogenesis and multiple universes and other such foolishness.

 

I think that is a dangerous path to start down indeed.

 

John

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 10:25 AM
To: John Walley; gmurphy@raex.com; PvM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence
Science

 

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 13:10:49 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 13:10:50 EDT