Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 13:32:33 EDT
The puzzle to me is why there is so much emphasis on the physical world being "the thing", ...that which is of primary interest to the Creator. We of course cannot know what this role is for certain, but the whole timeline-linked unfolding nature of the universe suggests that a trajectory toward the desired outcome, and the processes that support that trajectory, are of lesser interest than the outcome itself. So it strikes me that the evolutionary (or not!) path that might be the vehicle for the dawning or mankind is in that sense an irrelevancy, aside from what it might teach us. What we do with the blessings contained in the prayer commended by George are more likely to be the interesting part of Creation from God's standpoint, comprising the context for the really significant part of the role that God plays in the history of man.

Or so it seemeth to me....        JimA [Friend of ASA]

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
This question is addressed to ID and TE believers and anyone in-between.  What role does God play in the history of man? 

 

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of PvM
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 10:57 AM
To: Collin Brendemuehl
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion



I see no other options. Sure, we could be ignorant of better
explanations, even Darwinism had to evolve although the main principle
of variation and selection remains.

ID's approach makes the conclusions and arguments rather weak because
it concludes design when we have eliminated known natural processes,
when a better conclusion would surely have been "we don't know". It's
through equivocation on terms like complexity, information and design
that ID confuses, misdirects.

Ask yourself, how does ID explain anything it concludes to be 'designed'?

Hint: It doesn't.

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
<collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
  
But what does remain when natural processes have been eliminated?
Either the supernatural, or our ignorance or perhaps an empty set?
      
Are there no other options?
How about corrections to naturalism?
Maybe there is another evolutionary argument that will work better than
Darwinsim?
While b&w arguments are considered weak, likewise so are many b&w
conclusions.
    

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.


  
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Wed Jul 2 13:33:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 13:33:09 EDT