Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Fri Nov 13 2009 - 10:26:40 EST

Response to John

John supports an argument as to why government, when it bans ID, is siding
with materialism. (see below) It is engaging in the materialist fantasy that
ID is Christian.

I've never met a physics person who is against SETI. And I've never met one
who thinks SETI is looking for God. Or if alien intelligence, if we find
it, is transcendental.

I think the Bible teaches there are intelligent created beings other than
humans. Sorry, I don't see any conflict between alien intelligences and
scripture. I think YEC's have problems with aliens. I've never previously
heard of a non-YEC having a problem.

ID ***IS*** secular. So secular I once thought it would be verboten by
most churches.
This is why is is insane for all the Christians to be claiming it,
especially YEC types.
ID isn't Christian whatsoever. In fact, it fits just fine with Islam. And
many other religions.
I've seen Hindus endorse ID. And American Indians.

This is why opposing ID because it allegedly supports Christian creationism
is just plain stupid. Only materialists take that position.

This is why John makes a really good argument as to why government, when it
bans ID, is siding with materialism. It is engaging in the fantasy that ID
is Christian.

Response to Schwarzwald:

It gets you to, at most, a powerful designer. Now, a powerful designer of
nature is not compatible with atheism or standard naturalism - but it's at
least broadly compatible with (among, again, many other types of designers)
the Christian God.

Cosmological design (which is similar to ID and is what Schwarzwald is
referring to) gets you to Fred Hoyle's and Steven Weinberg's
super-intelligent tinkerer. They are not Christians, and indeed oppose
Christianity. So if we ban these concepts from schools the effect is to
install that which is left over - that which is compatible only with
materialism. That is what I object to.
The Christians who want to do this banning for puristic theological reasons
are actually hurting everybody, including other Christians, including their
own world view. Dawkins is laughing. How to get a bunch of religionists
banning religion? HURRAH!. This is the stuff Screwtape wrote to his nephew
Wormwood about.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John Walley <> wrote:

> This TE surely does not believe anything of the sort. I think the drama of
> creation plays out on earth. I reject the alien argument and the associated
> evolutionary "Manifest Destiny" baggage that comes with it, including space
> travel and planetary colonization, and endless time left on the prophetic
> calendar, etc. There are physical limits to how much dominion humans can
> achieve over creation and think we are approaching them. Earth is the only
> planet in our solar system that supports human life for a reason. In fact I
> think the obfuscation of this is part of the spiritual deception of the age.
> And I think most ID adherants and evangelical Christians agree with this as
> well. Alien intelligence is an ID ploy to skirt the conclusions of God and
> to keep it secular. But I don't think any of them believe that except maybe
> Wells.
> John
> ------------------------------
> *From:* David Clounch <>
> *To:* Ted Davis <>
> *Cc:* Schwarzwald <>;
> *Sent:* Fri, November 13, 2009 10:47:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ted Davis <> wrote:
>> Well, Schwarzwald, in a word: Yes.
> If unevolved means non-natural, then yes. Well.... then maybe.
> TE's surely believe alien intelligences are evolved, natural,
> non-transcendental, yet made by God. And if they have the ability to
> engineer the evolution of other lifeforms.......
> How is it they would be god?
>> At least in this context: the context is how the universe came to have the
>> order we discern, and an "unevolved intelligence" in this context can only
>> be a creator. Would you disagree?
> I disagree. Cosmological evolution is different than biological evolution.
> The latter is simply re-arranging pre-existing matter. It has nothing to do
> with creating matter or laws of nature.
> Cheers, Dave
>> Ted
>> >>> Schwarzwald <> 11/12/2009 3:24 PM >>>
>> Ted,
>> Before I dig into a greater reply on this, I have to ask: Are you telling
>> me
>> that any "unevolved intelligence" would by definition be God?
>> 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 Fri Nov 13 10:27:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 13 2009 - 10:27:16 EST