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 - 23:09:45 EDT

I should have said 'Design" or "appearance of design" in itself has no theological  significance.  My slip - but I think my meaning should have been clear from the following sentence ("It's only if they're thought to point to a designer that they do.").

I agree completely that "Those that seek Him must believe first" - & "faith comes from what is heard, & what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Romans 10:17).  It doesn't come from observations of stars or bacteria, though such observations may help us to see better what God is doing once we do believe. 

It seems to me that you're being confused by the ambiguity of the phrase "intelligent design" - an ambiguity that ID proponents exploit to the full.  Anyone who believes that the world is God's creation & that God has purposes for creation believes in "intelligent design."  That again is an expression of faith.  It's a quite different matter to think that (a) intelligent design & a Designer can be inferred from scientific observations independently of such a faith commitment & (b) that intelligent design & a Designer should be & need to be parts of scientific theory.  The latter ideas are distinctive of today's ID movement & they are represent bad science and bad theology.

I make no dogmatic claim that "the age of miracles has ceased."  But as I pointed out near the start of this thread, there is no scriptural or other theological basis for the idea that the development of living things involves continued miracles.

This will probably be my last post till Tuesday.  If you want to understand my position in more detail you can look at my book The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross or my 2002 PSCF article "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity," which is on the ASA website.

Shalom,

George

> > >   > > >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. > > > > > > >


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 23:10:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 23:10:36 EDT