Re: [asa] Conversation with Timaeus, part one

From: j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Sep 22 2008 - 16:57:13 EDT

Marvelous thread. As a non-TE firmly fixed on the fence (ouch) over
ID, I see that I may -- again -- be able to learn something from the
ASA list.

That has happened often in the past decade or so. I still have a long way to go!

One question continues to bug me. As one trained all too well in the
foundational principle of methodological naturalism, the denial of
such by the ID people seems -- simply -- wrong. Yes, I've read
Plantigna's essays on this. But so far, they are not persuasive.

Does God leave, as Johnson puts it, his "fingerprints all over the
place as evidence?" I think every Christian must say "yes" to this.
But how these "fingerprints" are detected is the rub. Polyani wrote of
three kinds of evidence, subjective, objective and a middle
possibility, personal knowledge. For me, the "fingerprints" are
evidences to me through direct revelations, three of them (for me) in
total. Personal knowledge.

Paul Tillich once wrote (highly paraphrased)

1. There is an infinite gulf between humanity and the divine.
2. There is, therefore, a necessity of revelation
3. As a consequence, our speech about these things is always
fragmented, incomplete, ambiguous.

Almost certainly the above rambles too much to cast any light on this
discussion.

Thanks, Ted, for starting it and thanks, Tim, for participating.

Burgy (an idist but not an IDist)

www.burgy.50megs.com/ntseoad.htm

(an account of an early seminar on this issue, published in ORIGNS AND DESIGN)

On 9/22/08, Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/22/08 12:35 PM, "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> So what is ID opposed to? It is opposed only to the notion that the
> evolutionary process is unguided by any designing intelligence. In other
> words, it is opposed only to orthodox neo-Darwinism, as advocated by people
> like Dawkins and Coyne and Sagan and Gould. This means that ID's battle is
> not against "theistic evolutionism", where theistic evolutionism is properly
> defined (as belief in an evolutionary process planned and guided, or at
> least set up, by God), but only against "theistic Darwinism", which appears
> to be the position of many EC/TEs. This means that, to the extent that ID
> could wean many TEs away from "theistic Darwinism", while leaving them free
> to retain non-Darwinian forms of theistic evolution, a rapprochement between
> ID and TE is possible. It is in from within this hope for rapprochement
> that I am writing now.
>
> Thanks for your post - I'll be following the discussion with interest. My
> question is simple: how would you define "theistic Darwinism?" How does this
> position differ from what you see as the permissible form of theistic
> evolutionism (as you define it above)?
>
> Dennis
>
> --
>
> Dennis R. Venema, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor and Chair, Biology Dept.
> Trinity Western University
> 7600 Glover Road
> Langley, B.C. Canada
> V2Y 1Y1
>
> 604-513-2121 ext. 3446
> dennis.venema@twu.ca
>
> http://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 22 16:57:47 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 22 2008 - 16:57:47 EDT