Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2D from Timaeus: to Dennis Venema

From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 17:20:22 EDT

Quoting Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>:

Timaeus writes:
> ...But however often he
> does it, and whether it‚€™s detectable or not, it‚€™s a miracle, and it‚€™s
> non-naturalistic causation breaking into nature. Darwin says ‚€œNO‚€ to
> that. He says that if that happens, even once, then the theory of evolution
> is dead. If Darwin can‚€™t have a fully naturalistic theory, he wants none
> at all. So IF you insist that Darwinism is completely right, then God
> can‚€™t interact with nature during the evolutionary process. And if
> Christianity says that he sometimes does, or at least sometimes might, well,
> too bad for Christianity. When you sign on with Darwin the way Ken Miller
> has (‚€œ100% orthodox Darwinist‚€, he calls himself), your God can only
> perform the miracles that Darwin will let him perform. And in this case,
that‚€™s zero. (But then,
> Miller contradicts himself, because he toys with the ‚€œGod hides behind
> quantum indeterminacy‚€ theory, and thus in effect says that Darwinism might
> not be 100% right. This is another example of the lack of theoretical
> discipline among TE writers.)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm already right there with you (I who still
consider myself to be more on the evolutionary creationist side of things)...
I.e. If to be a Darwinist is to say "none of that" referring to any action of
God's, then so much the worse for "Darwinism" and I drop it like a hot-potato
(if indeed I had ever assented to such a thing.) I haven't waded through
"Origin of Species" and I'm quite willing to accept for now that you report
Darwin accurately. To the extent Darwin attempts this, he commits the same
childish error as Dawkins does today. I've no axe to grind defending Darwin's
theology.

But to conclude that presently observed natural laws (i.e. planetary orbits and
embryology) may operate on a different set of rules now than in the past, that
is quite another claim. It's a good and bold stroke, and I respect it as a
possible answer to the "knit together in the womb" challenge. But while this
seems to border on (or cross in to) a realm of non-falsifiability, I'm sure that
is just what I.D. people are working on ---finding present evidence that
existing sets of laws are insufficient to explain everything. I see that as a
"burden of proof" load that will crush any side that accepts it; hence both
sides eagerness to make the other carry it. (& their eagerness to prematurely
claim "proof" on what can they can see now.) Possible theme: 'Proof' always
seems to go 'poof'. Such a burden will, I predict, be insurmountable in the
end and leave us ultimately back with faith anyway.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 29 17:21:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 29 2008 - 17:21:10 EDT