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

From: <mlucid@aol.com>
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 01:30:17 EDT

 Nobody is trying to represent God in purely scientific terms that I know of.  They are either trying to refute God, or corroborate God.  Trying to represent God in wholly scientific terms is impossible.  Trying to represent God in partly in scientific terms is not.  That the belief in God might be characterized as a naturally selected survival trait is not at all outside the tenets of either science or religion.  That God is infinitely more than that is not scientifically determinable, but by definition necessarily true.

The search for truth is ultimately identical for both "sides" in the debate.  Only they are in a separate context, one from the other.  Scientific truth is couched in terms of local physical relationships in an infinite universe.  Spiritual truths are couched in terms of the infinite context that forever surrounds and underpins our local observations as essential to our survival and manifest in our religion and grounded in our instincts. 

In all probability, science will in time discover many enigmatic truths that are currently couched in religious terms.  Such things as the soul may be found to be identifiable.  Perhaps it will discover that the seat of perception is at points able to reside outside of the body in corroboration of many subjective accounts of near death and out-of-body experiences.  Who knows? 

But either side fighting the purposes of the other is noting but mutually destructive.  Anyone who engages in battling the premises of science where we are confident, is doing a disservice to the purposes of our minds.  Anyone who engages in battling the premises of religion is doing a disservice to the purposes of our survival (not to mention our salvation). 

-Mike

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.

 

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 22 01:31:39 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 22 2007 - 01:31:40 EDT