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 - 20:06:39 EDT

 

>Design" or "appearance of design" has no theological significance

 

I don't understand how you can say this. Either we observe design or we
don't. And to answer Pim's question about appealing to secular scientists,
the fact that they admit it as well (albeit without attributing it to God)
establishes objectively that design exists and it is not just an overactive
imagination of Dembski or Behe. Once established, the only question
remaining is how it got there, and that is where the parallel with the
Pharisees come in.

 

Maybe calming the storm wasn't the best example of God using miracles to
directly establish His credentials but there are many. In fact in one case
he argued with the Pharisees and specifically mentioned His miracles and
said that as a result the Kingdom of Heaven had come upon them. He also used
the fact that their own sons and daughters were doing miracles as well to
counter their charge of him doing do from Beelzebub which clearly makes the
link between miracles and divine authorship.

 

I am not thirsting for signs and am aware that Jesus denied them to the
Pharisees but He very plainly established them as key testimonies to Him
even ongoing through out NT church history by declaring that these "signs"
would follow all that believe. It looks like you and I take opposite
theological positions along the cessationist divide but that is a side
issue. The important point is that God appealed to Israel's innate spiritual
knowledge of God as being the author of the universe to establish His
credentials with them so it is logical for us today (including Behe and
Dembski) to respond the same way. I will concede it may not be scientific
but as demonstrated, God didn't expect a scientific response, but one based
on this innate faith.

 

That is why trying to represent God in these purely scientific terms to
those in the terminal clutches of scientism is misguided. They are the ones
seeking the same signs as the Pharisees that were denied. Those that seek
Him must believe first or as Jesus said even if they saw someone raise from
the dead they wouldn't believe. So that is why winning the battle for
science is a shallow victory. It is only winning the battle for truth that
matters.

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:07 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science
and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

 

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.

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 20:07:30 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 20:07:30 EDT