Re: [asa] Four views

From: <philtill@aol.com>
Date: Thu Dec 18 2008 - 09:29:33 EST

 Randy wrote:

I'm not sure why you say "ID strikes me as
entirely unbiblical." That doesn't seem fair to me. It may be non-biblical in
the sense that it doesn't address nor reflect biblically based concepts. But it
isn't opposed to biblical ideas, is it? Maybe to some degree, to the extent that
ID may insist on design being detectable in a particular manner.

 Phil's reply:

Hi Randy,
Well, of course I don't think that the ID'ers are trying to be non-biblical, or that they even realize that ID is not very well aligned with Scripture.? But I believe it is contrary to the major theme of the NT that "God hides from the wise and reveals himself to babes," and "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these [children]," and "where are the wise of this world?...God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise..."? This theme seems pretty central.? I don't think we can set it aside without losing something of the general tenor of biblical Christianity.? But it is the kind of thing that people can and do set aside to their own satisfaction quite easily.? It's tough for us biased humans to really align ourselves with truth.? If there is no mathematical or scientific process to approach a particular branch of truth, then it is almost hopeless to get everyone to align with it.? So it is with Scriptural epistemology.? So if the ID'ers think they've di
 scovered a way to prove God's design, then the excitement of that will probably carry them along for many years and they will be unable to see past it and thus align themselves with the overall epistemology of Scripture.

Phil

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: philtill@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 9:39 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] Four views

Phil wrote:

"But I'm not sure the distinction of
"tweaking" (versus "not tweaking") and "front-loading" (versus "not
front-loading") gets to the real heart of the issue, either.? If God wanted
to play a very ordinary hand of cards, then he would choose a front-loading of
the deck that was very typical rather than atypical, so that the hand that gets
dealt would turn out to be very ordinary.? But if he wanted to play a Royal
Flush, then he would choose a front-loading of the deck that was very
unusual.? Either way, he is just as involved in front-loading the deck, but
he would have a different objective in mind.? He would choose the ordinary
hand just as intentionally as the Royal Flush, and so he would choose the
particular stacking of the deck just as intentionally up front.

For this
reason, there is every bit as much design by God in TE as there is in ID.?
TE does not eliminate design even the tiniest bit.? The only difference is
that in TE you can't detect the design whereas in ID you supposedly can.?
This is why ID strikes me as entirely unbiblical.? (I reject ID on
theological grounds, not scientific ones, since I'm not too interested in
biology and don't pay much attention to it.)? In ID, the smart people such
as molecular biologists are supposedly able to use their fancy machines and
detect God's design in the tiny depths of living cells, thereby flushing God out
of hiding.? But the simple folk who s weep floors for a living don't share
in that benefit.? Alas, they have to rely on the molecular biologists to
tell them whether God exists.? But in TE, God is every bit as involved in
designing life as he is in ID, although a major objective of God's design was to
hide the design so that smart people like molecular biologists wouldn't have any
advantage in finding him.? Therefore, finding God becomes a matter of
repentance and faith, not intelligence or fancy
machines."

?

?

Phil, I certainly agree that there is design in TE.
I'm not sure I'd say that "you can't detect design" in TE. Nothing rules it out.
It's just that TE doesn't base its belief in a designer on a scientific
detection but on revelation. One might still say the design is detectable. My
own view (I don't know a label) is that design is detectable--in the
comprehensible pattern in nature. I'm not sure why you say "ID strikes me as
entirely unbiblical." That doesn't seem fair to me. It may be non-biblical in
the sense that it doesn't address nor reflect biblically based concepts. But it
isn't opposed to biblical ideas, is it? Maybe to some degree, to the extent that
ID may insist on design being detectable in a particular manner.

?

Randy

 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 18 09:30:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 18 2008 - 09:30:18 EST