RE: [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 - 16:26:05 EDT

We are disconnecting on the definition of design. You are fixated on Behe
and Dembski as they are easy targets because they overplay their arguments
and cross the boundaries of science into faith, but the examples I used were
in fact were from secular scientists Rees, Davies and Hoyle who all accept
design.

George admitted by pointing out that "there is no scriptural reason to think
that God either creates or sustains life miraculously - i.e., other than
through natural processes" that there are natural processes at work that do
sustain life and these processes are the boundaries of true irreducible
complexity and the last line of defense we as Christians must hold if we
claim a rational faith.

This basic level of design that even secular scientists and all TE's accept,
is my definition of design and what all my arguments including those of
Jesus' miracles were employed to defend. This level of design is still
important to point out and defend because it is in contrast to multiple
universes and other shameless intellectual cop-out ruses. Those that reject
this basic level of design I contend are the equivalent of modern day
Pharisees that will never accept the evidence of God in His creation no
matter what is ever discovered.

What Behe, Dembski and ID may have done that you consider harmful to the
faith is unfortunate, but in my opinion is no worse that what these
scientism-ists have done in hijacking modern day science so that MN means PN
and not even this broader definition of design that secular scientists
individually accept can be considered in academia.

And this is also why I say it is not a smart strategy for us to be too quick
to agree with atheists in piling on about the errors of ID.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:12 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science
and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

On 10/21/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

An interesting approach, however the question now becomes, who are the
Pharisees who are denying God's Creation by placing His contributions
in ever narrowing gaps of our knowledge? Who is doing damage to
Christian credibility (St Augustine) by making 'foolish' assertions
about science? Can your God not survive abiogenesis or the findings of
multiple universes? Perhaps we should ask ourselves, are we not aiding
and abetting our "enemies", does the end justify the means and remind
ourselves of St Augustine's warning.

As a reminder, ID claims that 'design' is nothing more than that which
remains when we eliminate known pathways as likely, but rather than
calling it 'we don't know' ID insists on calling it something more
which causes much confusion amongst its followers as they naturally
equate design with Design.
When science, as is the case for the flagella, finds plausible
scenarios, ID has opened up Christianity to powerful forces that can
point to the falsification of 'design'. The potential damage of flawed
scientific teachings as a foundation for Christianity is self evident
in YEC and extends logically to ID.
Once we accept that science is limited in what it can address, can we
avoid such "foolishness" of trying to use science to find our god(s).
Yes, I am using the plural since the multiple designer hypothesis has
already been proposed as a better explanation that a single designer.
Is that the kind of science we want to be taught to our children?

As to the flawed analogies with Jesus and miracles, it is sufficient
to point out that neither you nor I and not even Dembski or Behe are
Jesus, and thus those denying Dembski or Behe may not necessarily be
denying Jesus, in fact, they may be strongly supporting Jesus and
Christian faith. Sure, ID is being attacked by atheists but also many
Christians, so it is hard to argue that ID is attacked by our
philosophical enemies alone. What ID has done however is handed
powerful weapons to its own philosophical enemies. As a Christian I
have no problem pointing out the scientific infertility of ID as well
as the dangerous theology that follows from it.

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.
Received on Sun Oct 21 16:26:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 16:26:53 EDT