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

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Thu Jul 10 2008 - 07:57:45 EDT

Yes, physical pain is a helpful & sometimes essential warning sign. Without
it we all would have had multiple broken bones, severe burns &c before we'd
reached the age of reason - if we even reached that - & if our species could
have even evolved to start with. But the person who is in severe pain with
terminal cancer is past the point of needing a warning that something's
wrong. He/she is just suffering. & no, I don't think that suffering is
completely pointless - the cross stands against any such notion. But again
that doesn't mean that we have to convince ourselves that there's nothing
bad about it. God brings good out of evil, not because evil has some
potential for good but because God is the one who "justifies the ungodly ...
raises the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" so
that we can be "hoping against hope" (Rom.4:5, 17-18).

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack" <drsyme@verizon.net>
To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...

> First of all let me clarify something here. Pain fiber cell bodies
> actually reside in a structure called the dorsal root ganglion. These
> ganglia are at every spinal level on both sides of the spinal cord. A
> pain fiber has two axons, one that leaves the ganglion and enters the
> spinal cord at its adjacent level to innervate the spinal thalamic column.
> The other axon leaves the ganglion and travels all the way down the limb.
> So the taller you are the longer this axon stretches, and with longer
> axons the conduction velocity of the nerve becomes slower and more
> susceptible to injury. So the problem with Robert Wadlow wasnt that "the
> normal number of nerves had to be spread over a body nearly 9 feet tall"
> but that the fibers going to the ankle were so long that they just couldnt
> do the job. It is not that the actual number or ratio of nerves that was
> the problem, but the actual length of the axons of some of the nerves.
>
> Secondly, pain is clearly not evil. There are specific structures that
> mediate pain. Pain receptors are part of God's creation. Our bodies are
> created to experience pain. Pain existed before man arrived on the scene,
> and clearly before sin entered the world.
>
> The evil related to pain comes from our broken relationship with God. We
> were supposed to be stewards of God's creation, which means also means
> caring for each other. But this relationship between man and creation,
> man and fellow man, and man and God is broken. That is evil.
>
>
>>From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>>Date: 2008/07/09 Wed PM 11:28:48 EDT
>>To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
>>Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net, asa@calvin.edu
>>Subject: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
>
>>I have noted that whatever someone does not like is likely to be termed
>>"natural evil." This especially applies to pain and death, with a
>>multiplier if the entity in pain or dying is cute and cuddly. But Robert
>>Wadlow, the tallest human, died because he did not feel the pain of a
>>lesion on one ankle. I have read that the problem was that the normal
>>number of nerves had to be spread over a body nearly 9 feet tall. The
>>predators on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon were killed to protect the
>>deer. But soon every plant was eaten off as high as the multitude of
>>starving deer could reach. A world without pain and death would not be
>>functional. Additionally, does a caterpillar parasitized by an ichneumon
>>wasp larva feel pain as we imagine it would hurt us to have something
>>eating our guts? Further, feces stink. Wouldn't the world be so much nicer
>>if no mammal defecated? The dream of a world without offal can be
>>described by a related earthy term.Dave (ASA) On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 1!
>
> 0:44:06 -0400 "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> writes: 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/ ----- Original Message ----- From:
>>Dick Fischer To: ASA 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/
>>
>>----- 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/~gmurphy/>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu
>>>> <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> >
>>>> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
>>>> <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> >; "Murray Hogg"
>>>> <muzhogg@netspace.net.au <mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au> >;
>>>> "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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> 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/~gmurphy/>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au
>>>> <mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au> >
>>>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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<BR>>>>> 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> >
>>>>>> 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> with
>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>>>> <mailto: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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 10 08:01:21 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 10 2008 - 08:01:21 EDT