Re: ID:philosophy or scientific theory?

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:53:46 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "Re: intellectual objections/was ID etc."

    At 08:41 AM 3/9/00 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    >I find it hard to believe that people leave their faith because there are no
    >Christian apologetics around to answer their doubts. What is wrong with
    >going to the original source, the Bible? Scientists go to the original
    >source, nature, to answer questions, don't they? As I Christian I believe
    >the Truth lies in Scripture, just as the truth about nature lies in nature
    >itself and not necessarily in the minds of researchers. I think the reason
    >for leaving the Christian faith is manifold, but I find it hard to believe
    >that it is the one you give.

    Let me ask this. Why don't scientists go to the original source, the
    Bhagadvadgita--the hindu text? Why don't scientists go to the Koran? Why
    don't scientists go to the original source, the Iliad? Why don't they go to
    any of an innumerable 'sources'?

    Because they don't beleive that they are true. So when it comes to the
    Bible, why should they go to it if it has no observational support?
    Provine told me that after the first lecture in Lynn Throckmorton's
    graduate course in evolution he told Throckmorton that he had left out the
    most important part of evolution--the purpose. Throckmorton told him that
    there was no purpose that he could detect but that if Will wanted to try to
    find some, then he should go ahead and try. Will did try. I will quote him:

         "We read the 3rd edition of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of
    Species, and I read and reread it, finding at last no way to see anything
    purposive in the evolutionary process. That was the beginning of the
    downward slide on the slippery slope. The problem is that if one gives up
    the argument from design, then all one is left with is tortuous academic
    arguments for the existence of God, or personal experiences with God, or
    faith-like acceptance of the fantastic stories of the Bible. I just could
    not see any way to escape the implications of really believing in evolution
    and so rather quickly slid right to the bottom of the slippery slope,
    denying the existence of free will as the last rough spot on the way down."
         "So the struggle is over for me. I find it logically compelling and
    emotionally satisfying to take a completely naturalistic viewpoint as a
    provisional hypothesis" (pesonal email communication Jan 13, 1995)

    I would note, that he didn't find the stories of the Bible as strong enough
    evidence to avoid his downward slide. That is why historicity is
    important. If we had something that actually made those things history, we
    wouldn't have had to deal at Cornell at least, with the person Will
    became--a strong advocate for atheism. He was also reported to have said
    (This was sent to me by a friend):

    >"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
    >--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell
    University.

    I agree with what Provine says because Christians help make it that way. We
    teach that if the evidence fits evolution then the Bible is false. Well when
    students learn that much of what they were taught isn't true, then they
    draw the conclusion their parents taught them,---the Bible is false in
    their eyes. So they do become atheists. On the other hand, the other side
    of the coin, the theistic evolutionists generally teach that the Bible
    stories are not real history. So why should someone like Will, or me,
    believe them if they admittedly aren't real?

    And since Will contracted cancer, I asked him bluntly if it had changed any
    of his perspective on life and ultimate reality. He told me that not
    having to blame a nasty god who gave him the brain cancer nor having to
    live afterward was a real advantage. (personal e-mail communication (March
    20, 1998)).

    So, I would say to you Moorad, how do you get someone to go to the source
    who doesn't think it is the source and thinks it is highly flawed? The
    problem with your suggestion is that you limit your vision to a christian
    world. This isn't a christian world. THere are lots of other possible
    options. And to George Murphy, I would not, that here too is another
    example of why this issue IS related to Christ. We are losing some awfully
    good people because we fail to come to grips with the reality of evolution
    and the need of many to have a real account of the creation.

    glenn

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology
    http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

    Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 09 2000 - 20:46:56 EST