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

From: George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com <Murphygmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 19:06:51 EDT

No, what Davies et al belief about the source of design (or, as Dawkins says, the appearance of design) is the whole point. "Design" or "appearance of design" has no theological significance. It's only if they're thought to point to a designer that they do.

Jesus didn't still the storm "to establish his supernatural credentials" but to keep the boat from sinking - Note his responses when a sign "to establish his supernatural credentials" was demanded - e.g., Mk.8:11-12. Anyway, I am of course not saying that God has done nothing to reveal himself but that that revelation is 1st of all his historical acts culminating in Christ & not natural phenomena accessible to everyone. The latter must be seen in the context of the former to tell us anything about God, as I already said. Job illustrates that quite well.

I suggest that you tame your thirst for signs by reflecting on I Corinthians 1:22-23.

I may not be able to respond again for a bit - I'll be on the road & in the air & in staff meetings.

Shalom,

George

> > > 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 > > > > > > >


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 19:07:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 19:07:59 EDT