Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...

From: Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jul 09 2008 - 12:07:21 EDT

Unless of course you introduce the "cosmic fall" concept...
But then where does it end?

I rather like Robert Ferrar Capon's term of natural "badness" rather than
natural "evil". It says things happen that have bad results, but they are
not a result of either human sin, Satan, or a cosmic fall. Bad things
happen precisely because the creation also allows for good things to happen.

Bethany

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:44 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> Yeah, the ichneumon wasp must have been created by Satan and his
> minions. Did they also engineer the Indian Ocean tsunami? Or did that just
> *seem* to have bad results?
>
> Turn off the fantasy generator.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:00 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
>
> "Natural evil" is a *non sequitur*. There is "evil" that derives from
> the work of Satan and his minions. There are calamities that happen in
> nature from time to time, and there are ordinary natural events that may
> seem to have bad results. There is nothing inherently "evil" about God's
> "good creation." So can we stop giving credibility to these unfortunate
> lapses of intelligence? H'mmm, I see the subject line is apropos.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *William Hamilton
> *Sent:* Monday, July 07, 2008 10:27 AM
> *To:* George Murphy
> *Cc:* PvM; Alexanian, Moorad; Murray Hogg; ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
>
>
>
> I'd be interested in what Luther said about this issue. Can you give us a
> reference, George? Thanks. I sometimes think that "natural evil" such as
> parasitism is the unavoidable consequence of God's working out his plan.
> Perhaps something along the lines of "God can't make square circles". But
> the claim that God is constrained in any way implies that God is subject to
> laws outside of himself. I don't know how to deal with that.
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:30 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> Certainly many aspects of the human condition can be studied by various
> sciences. & certainly sin has played a major role in human history. The
> category "sin" is, however, not applicable before moral agents come on the
> scene.
>
>
>
> I don't see why there's much doubt about what's meant by "the grimmer
> aspects of the evolutionary process." The ichneumon wasps eating their way
> out of the paralyzed but living caterpillar is a classic example, not made
> any less grim - in the view of human beings with any sensitivity - by the
> fact that it's part of a well-balanced system. We need to avoid 2 extremes
> of superficial theodicy - the idea beloved of YECs that God couldn't have
> created a world with any suffering & death so that all of that is due to
> human sin & a kind of que sera sera approach where whatever is is good.
> Luther's distinction between God's *opus proprium* and *opus alienum*provides one way of dealing with such issues in a theologically more
> satisfactory way. But of course that is a theological distinction, not one
> of the natural - or of the human or social - sciences.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
>
> To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>
> Cc: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "Murray Hogg" <
> muzhogg@netspace.net.au>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:01 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
>
>
>
> > Of course we can ascribe whatever we want to sin, after all this
> > concept seems far more open to theological variation and
> > interpretation.
> > I am not sure what people mean by the grimmer aspects of the
> > evolutionary process. It's all part of a well balanced system we have
> > come to call the eco-system. Science surely can study the origin and
> > evolution of man and woman, as to addressing concepts of sin, what do
> > you think science could contribute or how would we come to ascribe for
> > sure concepts of faith?
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> wrote:
> >> Is man (women, if you like) part of the "tiny part of that design" that
> scientist can grasp within the context of science? Does the "grimmer
> aspects" of the evolutionary process also include man? I suppose you have a
> balancing act of keeping God good and still have the evolutionary process
> carrying on the development of man from lesser forms of life. Can we
> ascribe, for sure, the present state of man and, perhaps, some of the
> history of man to sin?
> >>
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> >> Sent: Sun 7/6/2008 5:31 PM
> >> To: Alexanian, Moorad; Murray Hogg; ASA
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course a Christian who is a scientist should understand that she is
> attempting to understand the work of the creator. A little care is needed
> in saying that she is learning how God carries out God's design for the
> world. 1st, the work of most scientists will grasp only a tiny part of that
> design. (Eccl.3:11 is worth keeping in mind here.) 2d, the grimmer aspects
> the evolutionary process should remind us that some of the things as
> scientist studies may not be God's immediate intention but, so to speak,
> collateral damage attendant upon carrying out the divine design. In more
> theological terms they are God's "alien work" (i.e., foreign to God's nature
> as love) rather than from God's "proper work" (a distinction made by
> Luther).
> >>
> >> Shalom
> >> George
> >> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/> <
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu <
> mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu <alexanian@uncw.edu>> >
> >> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com<GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>>
> >; "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au <mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au<muzhogg@netspace.net.au>>
> >; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>> >
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:08 PM
> >> Subject: RE: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
> >>
> >>
> >> If a Christian who is a practicing scientist says, the reason I am doing
> (peer-reviewed) scientific studies is to know the works of the Creator. Is
> he off his rock? Is he seeking design in Nature?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Famous Scientists Who Believed in God <
> http://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/<
> http://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/<
> http://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/>
> <
> http://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/<
> http://scottdaddy.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>>
> on behalf of George Murphy
> >> Sent: Sun 7/6/2008 4:19 PM
> >> To: Murray Hogg; ASA
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The claim that ID is a "science stopper" need not mean just that its
> >> adherents don't even try to do any science. If all attempts to do
> positive
> >> science within an ID paradigm fail to get anywhere then after a point
> it's
> >> not unreasonable to conclude that that paradigm has prevented any
> progress.
> >> Whether or not such a point has been reached can of course be debated.
> >>
> >> Shalom
> >> George
> >> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/> <
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au <
> mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>> >
> >> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>> >
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 4:00 PM
> >> Subject: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Pim,
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't matter much what ID theorists claim, one only has to look at
> >>> their output to determine whether they are content with a simple claim
> of
> >>> ignorance.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, the quotations you cite from Nelson and Johnson are sufficient
> to
> >>> prove the point: whether one agrees with the science or not, working
> out a
> >>> "fully fledged theory of biological design" would require the same
> level
> >>> of effort as a fully fledged theory of biological evolution.
> >>>
> >>> The issue with Dembski (and other design theorists) is NOT whether they
> >>> have succeeded in demonstrating improbability, the issue is whether
> they
> >>> have ATTEMPTED to go past it. Which they have.
> >>>
> >>> As for the question, "what has Dembski contributed to our understanding
> of
> >>> the bacterial flagellum?"...
> >>>
> >>> You might recall the old story about Edison who, having failed for the
> >>> umpteenth time to find the right "formula" for a lightbulb, was asked
> if
> >>> he was discouraged. His response, "No, I've found one more way how NOT
> to
> >>> do it".
> >>>
> >>> Ask yourself: up to that point, what did Edison's experiments
> contribute
> >>> to our understanding of the lightbulb?
> >>>
> >>> Science is done by, and advances through, even those whose efforts
> fail.
> >>>
> >>> Blessings,
> >>> Murray Hogg
> >>> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> >>> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
> >>>
> >>> PvM wrote:
> >>>> Since ID is an argument from ignorance, the fact that some IDers have
> >>>> attempted to claim that it isn't should not be seen as a rejection or
> >>>> disproof of the simple fact.
> >>>> The foundation of ID is based on an eliminative approach which is
> >>>> unable to compete with 'we don't know'. ID may claim that it has
> >>>> attempted to go beyond this position of ignorance but until they are
> >>>> willing to constrain the designer, no progress will be made.
> >>>>
> >>>> It should not come as too much of a surprise that even amongst IDers
> >>>> there exists a certain level of disappointment with the lack of much
> >>>> progress
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul Nelson admitted
> >>>>
> >>>> "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a
> >>>> full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory
> >>>> right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to
> >>>> know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag
> >>>> of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible
> >>>> complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet, no general theory
> >>>> of biological design. "
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Philip Johnson admitted
> >>>>
> >>>> "I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent
> >>>> design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to
> >>>> the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a
> >>>> fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's
> >>>> comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> >>>> people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> >>>> quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No
> >>>> product is ready for competition in the educational world. "
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, even though there may be some ID proponents who
> >>>> believe that ID can be developed into a 'theory' or even a non vacuous
> >>>> 'hypothesis' does not mean that this makes ID less vacuous as a
> >>>> science or less of an argument from ignorance. As to ID being a
> >>>> science killer, ask yourself, what has ID contributed to our knowledge
> >>>> about the bacterial flagellum. It were hard working scientists who
> >>>> have started to unravel the origin and evolution of this once
> >>>> 'irreducibly complex' system.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dembski's mathematical analysis of design is nothing more that a
> >>>> carefully reworded argument from improbability where Dembski attempts
> >>>> to circumvent the inherent problems of such an argument with the
> >>>> concept of specification. Ask yourself, what has Dembski contributed
> >>>> to actual scientific understanding? Have you read his 'analysis' of
> >>>> protein formation and how he applies 'mathematics' to further his
> >>>> 'argument'? The problem with ID is that, like its cousin YEC, it has
> >>>> to ignore scientific progress, downplay scientific understanding and
> >>>> undermine science education. None of these can really be seen as
> >>>> contributing to science, science education or scientific
> >>>> understanding.
> >>>> Now, there always exists the possibility that ID could become a
> >>>> scientifically relevant contributor to science but there appears to be
> >>>> no attempts from most ID proponents to take ID down that path. After
> >>>> all ID has served its purpose:
> >>>>
> >>>> ""Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get
> >>>> the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
> >>>> God, before the academic world and into the schools."" Philip Johnson
> >>>> (American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast, in which Johnson
> >>>> "discusses his book The Right Questions, encouraging Christians to
> >>>> actively debate issues of eternal value.")
> >>>>
> >>>> ID is scientifically speaking bankrupt and I doubt it can successfully
> >>>> file for chapter 11 and return in a scientifically more relevant
> >>>> manner. That instead the ID movement is attempting to spread the
> >>>> ignorance to australia via its DVDs shows that ID may be less
> >>>> interested in science and faith than it is in pursuing its
> >>>> religio-political asperations. Scary...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au<
> mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Rich,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At the end of the day I personally think that an objection to ID as
> an
> >>>>> argument from ignorance should be retired as manifestly false and
> >>>>> positively
> >>>>> harmful. False because ID theorists HAVE attempted to show that the
> >>>>> issue
> >>>>> ISN'T merely ignorance. Harmful, because it perpetuates the myth (?)
> of
> >>>>> persecution. Instead I think that it should be argued that - just as
> >>>>> Johnson
> >>>>> and Nelson have acknowledged - even when taken on its own terms ID
> >>>>> theory
> >>>>> seems not to have successfully demonstrated its case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu <
> mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu <majordomo@calvin.edu>> with
> >>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu <
> mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu <majordomo@calvin.edu>> with
> >>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu <
> mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu <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.
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
> Member American Scientific Affiliation
> Rochester, MI/Austin, TX
> 248 821 8156
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 9 12:07:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 09 2008 - 12:07:51 EDT