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

From: PvM <>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 16:56:01 EDT

We were discussing Intelligent Design so it should not come as a big
surprise that I address the claims by ID proponents such as Behe and
Dembski. Sure, they may be 'easy targets' but their arguments lead
astray many Christians.

Sure, design is accepted by scientists, we see evidences of such
design in nature all the time, however ID is interested in what is
best known as 'rarefied design' an area where science can do little
and where proponents of such design can do even less, at least
scientifically speaking. I am not sure how pointing to these 'secular
scientists' is going to help you in your argument. The impression of
design may be overwhelming but one has to understand how such claims
are being made and where these people take such claims. Surely appeal
to authority hardly seems a way to make ID respectable. Especially
when one comes to realize that ID's definition of 'design' is quite a
bit different from how one commonly uses the term.

I see no problem in abiding by my faith and my science to reject ID
even if this plays into the cards of atheists. Letting ID run
unopposed only will allow it to do far more damage to science and
faith. We should not close our eyes to such abuses of science,
especially when they come with such a cost to religious faith.

Since you 'argued'

<quote.Thus Pim, your rabid ID bashing goes against God's chosen methodology of
revealing himself to humanity.</quote>

I found it important to correct you in these matters.

On 10/21/07, John Walley <> wrote:
> 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: [] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:12 PM
> To: John Walley
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science
> and Intelligent/Intelligence Science
> On 10/21/07, John Walley <> 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 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 16:56:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 16:56:53 EDT