Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Wed Aug 26 2009 - 21:16:07 EDT

Heya David,

My understanding is that Miller 'challenges design' only insofar as he
challenges whether such views are science. I recall (I have no cite onhand)
that Miller has said that intelligent design views belong in a theology or a
philosophy class, but not a science class. They aren't necessarily wrong,
they simply touch on a topic that isn't appropriately "science". (In the way
that Pluto's status as a planet is a valid question, but you probably
shouldn't bring it up in gym.) I know that Miller disputes some of the more
distinct, technical claims of ID proponents - but I also know that Dembski
has said Miller's views on divine interaction are technically ID, so it's
not the most clear-cut area.

I'd agree with Murray Hogg that arguing evolution is 'unguided' and
'purposeless' is not only metaphysics rather than science, but is obviously
so. And I think TEs and ID proponents alike should be on guard against such
things showing up in schools. (To those who would suggest that this is a
baseless worry, I'll refer back to the NABT debacle at least as an
instructive example.) I also think the "harm" done by not respecting the
divide between science and metaphysics is wildly more apparent with
science's great and loud "defenders" (Dawkins, etc) than most anywhere else.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:47 AM, David Clounch <>wrote:

> Bernie's questions have led me down two forks in the road.
> In this post is fork #1.
> 1) It seems the TE position is that evolution has a purpose. That is the
> main tenet of TE.
> The materialist position is evolution has no purpose.
> What then happens to the Kenneth R Miller's argument in Dover where Miller
> challenges design based on arguing against purpose? How is it that Miller
> isn't arguing against TE?
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Dave Wallace <>wrote:
>> Murray Hogg wrote:
>>> But as for the alternate responses, I personally think it's a very hard
>>> question: why WOULD God choose to create through evolution when the process
>>> is intrinsically competitive and contrary to the command to love one's
>>> neighbour?
>> Sometimes I wonder if, given all the constraints, God's creating through
>> evolution was the only way he could get the kind of people he ultimately
>> wanted. The kind of constraints I am thinking of are things like moral
>> imperatives. As I see it God does not want determinism to rule the people
>> he looks for although our freedom is quite limited.
>>> Again, "I don't know" is, to me, an appropriate response and one I can
>>> live with.
>> I think we often have to live with I don't know. Too often we attempt to
>> go beyond our limitations, not only in science but it theology, some things
>> are simply mysteries. I do think that mankind's breaking of the law has
>> made the situation worse, much worse and that the results of such sin go
>> down through the generations.
>> Dave W
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 26 21:16:46 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 26 2009 - 21:16:46 EDT