Re: [asa] restatement on ID as a "proof" of God (defense of Behe)

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Tue Apr 28 2009 - 21:34:59 EDT

I have to disagree here, Don. With some exception, TEs seem to fight battles
first and foremost against other Christians. There's certainly a place for
those kinds of discussions - I think doctrinal differences, etc should not
be ignored or brushed aside. But the idea that 'if only TEs show that they
hold ID proponents and YECs in utter contempt maybe atheistic scientists
will realize they're not all bad!' is a failed strategy and was never a good
idea to begin with. (Frankly, I'm a TE myself by most measures - Cameron
would probably include me as someone in the ID camp.)

That isn't to say that I think the ID proponents have made all stellar
moves, though I think they've managed to do more good things than most TEs
(at least on this list) recognize. But my number on problem with them is
this: Cameron says that Neo-Darwinism is 90% metaphysics, 10% science. And
frankly, I agree with that. And I wish - I really, truly wish - ID
proponents would focus on that metaphysics, which is frankly utterly
extraneous to the science.

In my view, it's bad science to say that it's a scientific fact that
evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. It's also bad science to say
that it's a scientific fact that evolution is a guided, planned process.
Both statements are an abuse of science, but guess which one of these
statements is considered and treated as the stuff of scientific orthodoxy?
I've seen many people on this list frankly admit to their being unable to
scientific prove that a miracle occurred in natural history, or even imagine
what an actual miracle would look like under scientific investigation. But
atheists seem to believe that -they- know would know if a miracle occurred,
and that -they- know what an a miracle would look like under investigation.
Is this not a problem? And I don't mean a problem that just means some
atheist should be challenged to a public debate with a TE. I mean a problem
where, if it's found that schoolbooks are teaching that evolution is an
'unguided, unplanned, purposeless' process, that lawsuits should be in

While I'm not a big fan of everything that comes out of, say, Uncommon
Descent, I will say that I'm happy with quite a lot I do see. I'm happy with
them arguing that a lot of what we see in nature (whether we're talking
about specific organisms or aspects of organisms, or the very processes that
lead to these things) certainly looks planned on every turn. I'm happy with
them questioning the very nature of 'chance'. And I'm happy that, frankly,
they play by /the exact same rules/ that many atheists do. Guys like
Dawkins, Coyne, and otherwise were using 'design detection' on natural
history long before Dembski and others took the stage. The only difference
is that they were arguing no design was ever detected.

>> In my opinion it is counterproductive for Christians to challenge the
> Darwinian mechanism. First it is a "god of the gaps approach" and hence
> leads nowhere. Second, it needlessly alienates scientists who might
> otherwise be sympathetic to Christianity. It is the TE people and not the ID
> people who are fighting the battle on ground on which the battle is able to
> be won.
> Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 21:35:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 28 2009 - 21:35:42 EDT