David Campbell wrote:
> > Dawkins writes, "Darwin made it possible
> >to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." If Darwinism requires intelligent
> >direction, then Dawkins couldn't make that statement.
>
> This assumes that Dawkins is a reliable source. Darwin provided a natural
> explanation for a potentially vexing physical question, but there were
> plenty of smart atheists before then. Conversely, other issues remained
> unexplained. Also, neither Darwin nor Wallace were truly atheists, and a
> prior proposal of natural selection was clearly theistic.
>
> From a Christian viewpoint, wisdom and fulfillment would be defined
> differently. The fool say in his heart "There is no God"; apart from Him,
> intellect is mere knowledge whereas through Him we can approach what we
> ought to be in our intellect and everything else.
>
> David C.
In response to David and Joel, of course, I wasn't agreeing with Dawkins's
statement, just giving an example of the way in which Darwinism is typically
portrayed by scientists as needing nothing more than law and chance. Neither the
existence of atheists prior to Darwin nor the religious beliefs of Darwin himself
nor the identification of the argument from design with Christianity are relevant
to my point.
Joel Cannon wrote:
>The damage to orthoxy in Darwin's time, was arguably set up by
>Christians' acceptance of William Paley's "proof" of God's existence
>through the argument from design as being Christianity (Paley coined
>the watchmaker argument that Dawkins exploits in The Blind WAtchmaker)
>which they thought was a "silver bullet". For example, if I recall
>correctly, knowledge of Paley was more important than knowledge of the
>bible in examinations for the priesthood at Cambridge. (Dembski's
>wistful look back to Paley in "Intelligent Design" concerns
>me).
>The process might be something like this: 1) Paley said that design in
>nature indicated a benevolent God. Darwin produced a plausible
>alternative. Christians found the proof gone. Chistians who had built
>faith on a sandy foundation that did not involve Jesus lost their
>foundation.
>Rather than rebuild a sandy foundation, lets build on the rock and not
>go hankering after silver bullets.
>Interestingly, Dembski in "Intelligent Design" looks wistfully back to
>Paley.
Joel,
Either nature indicates a designer or it doesn't. One cannot claim that an
underlying teleology is necessary to explain why things work and then disparage
the design argument. One must either deny that an underlying teleology is
necessary or accept some form of the design argument. I'm new to this list, so I
have no idea whether you (or anyone on the list) rejects the claim that an
underlying teleology is necessary. If you do reject the claim that an underlying
teleology is necessary, then please ignore this.
David Campbell wrote:
>>Overall, I agree with what you say. However, I would like to see the quotation
where
>>Johnson says "Macroevolution disproves God". Johnson is (I believe) a
presbyterian
>>in the PCA, which, last time I checked, was a rather conservative organization,
and
>>fully behind the WCF and the doctrine of providence in particular.
>The PCA is indeed strongly committed to the WCF. I have no idea as to
>Johnson's denominational affiliation. Membership in the PCA requires
>profession of faith but not commitment to the Westminster standards.
>Johnson was not willing to endorse the statement that God acts through
>evolution, when the question previously came up on this list. Similarly,
>claiming that the choices are either ID or mindless molecular processes
>(Focus on the Family broadcast) rules out God using methods other than ID.
None of this entails that Johnson's position implies deism with interruptions, or
a rejection of the doctrine of providence. Nor is it even close to "macroevolution
disproves God". Concerning his refusing to endorse some statement about God acting
through evolution, without seeing the exact statement I cannot draw any
conclusions from his refusal. Concerning his 'ID or mindless process' claim on the
FOTF broadcast, this by no means implies that providence is a mindless process.
His opponent is naturalism. His claim is simply a logical disjunction that can be
translated to "Mind or no mind". It is not "divine intervention or no mind" and
thus excluding providence. In his view, naturalism (i.e. no mind) is insufficient;
therefore, intelligence is required. That is the first disjunction. One we
acknowledge that mind is required, then a *separate* but subordinate disjunction
(and one that goes beyond the claims of basic ID) has to do with mechanism.
"[Providence and direct divine action] OR [providence alone]". Neither side of
this disjunction entails that one's position implies deism with interruptions, or
a rejection of the doctrine of providence. Where is the principle of charity here?
This palpable disdain for and casual misrepresentation of ID and its proponents
isn't conducive to objectivity and understanding, even if ID theorists are all
wrong.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 17:57:23 EDT