Bryan wrote:
>You wrote, "But I agree with Dave that we are not going to put God in a
test
>tube!" Please name one ID proponent who claims that ID puts God in a test
tube,
>or even that ID proves the existence of God. When you imply that ID
proponents
>are trying to put God into a test tube, you are confusing the scientific
and
>theological aspects of ID, even though you state that you are not
confusing
>them.
I am rather stating that ID has both scientific and theological points
about it. If science actually reveals that there are signs of intelligent
design detectable in the universe, then that would strongly suggest the
presence of God. So it is definitely a scientific question with theological
implications. I would be happy to ask Behe and Dembski if agree with my
statement when I get a chance to email them, as I plan to. I don't think
they would agree to the term "putting God in a test tube" because it is a
rather derogatory remark, so for that I apologize. We can say the same
things in a nice, gentle way or in a more pointed, deliberate, and
sometimes derogatory way.
>Is there some rule that people can't wear two hats? That scientific
>observations can never have theological implications? Wearing two hats is
not
Ah see now we are saying the same things. Can we not discuss this without
it seeming like you are having conversation with a friend or sister
instead of an enemy you must prove wrong?
>The reason for that is because in general they are using the word
"Darwinism"
>differently than you are. By "Darwinism" they mean "neo-Darwinism" which
>carries with it [tacit] assumptions of and support of naturalistic
metaphysics.
The term neo-Darwinism simply means the melding of genetics with natural
selection (Darwinian theory). It has nothing to do with metaphysics, at
least according to the Biology textbooks. Perhaps some others are falsely
mixing the two. In Biology 5th Ed. by Solomon, Berg & Martin that I teach
from neo-Darwinism is synonymous with the "synthetic theory of evolution"
which is defined as "The synthesis of previous theories, especially of
Mendelian genetics, with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
to formulate a comprehensive explanation of evolution; also called
Neo-Darwinism."
When I teach I tell my students I do not like the term neo-Darwinism
because an "ism" typically represents a belief system, and evolution is
science. Nonetheless that is the apparently accepted definition. Perhaps it
is used in some other sources (probably popular literature/media) as a
different term, in the same way the term evolution is not defined and
misapplied.
>If Darwinian theory were just a biological theory, then the nature of the
>debate between ID proponents and naturalistic critics of ID would
(undoubtedly)
>be much more 'normal'. Because Darwinism is quite often used to support
>metaphysical naturalism, there is a clear need to drive (as Phil says) a
wedge
There are only a handful of outspoken people who mix their philosophical
implications taken from the theory of evolution - and cosmology - with the
science. They publish these claims in BOOKS not in scientific literature
(Dawkins, Sagan etc). There is no need for ID "scientists" to fight the
science of evolution. They are only shooting themselves in the foot by not
following appropriate scientific methods.
>Where does he contradict himself?
Would you like to see the essay and my critique? I'd be happy to send it to
you.
>First, this last statement alone shows that, in fact, you have not studied
ID
>enough, because you are still critiquing a straw man. No ID proponent that
I
What is a straw man. I took philosophy and logic many years ago and don't
have all the jargon memorized. To claim that a person has to study
something "enough" to make a point is ridiculous. You do not need to be an
expert to see the obvious! ;)
>you were the first astronaut on the Moon, and you came across John 3:16 on
the
>back of the Moon; would it be unethical for you to infer that this was
evidence
>for the existence of God? If so, why?
If one finds evidence of ID (on the moon or anywhere) I do *not* think it
is unethical to infer the evidence for a creator. That is not what I think
is unethical. I am not even saying ID is unethical. I am saying it has
ethical implications, and perhaps more spiritual than ethical per se. If a
person is going to take this search for God's "fingerprints" seriously, (or
any endeavor for that matter) they should earnestly seek God's counsel and
wisdom and advice in prayer. Maybe God wants people to find Him through
personal revelation not through scientific means? Maybe not. I don't know
because I have not taken it earnestly to God in prayer. I am not involved
in the study of ID either. I only mentioned that it has some interesting
spiritual implications. I think if Christians prayed and sought God's
wisdom more, there would be a lot less strife in the world. That goes for
myself as well. Everyone, really.
>Where only natural explanations are permitted. Yep. That's like telling
Galileo
>that he must publish his findings in Vatican-refereed journals.
I think that if someone did a study that looked for signs of intelligent
life and found it (like the way SETI combs for signals) that it would be
published in respected journals. I think setting up organizations like the
"Wedge" is shooting themselves in the foot, it is too much like a front-end
group pushing an agenda. If they really want to do the research, they
should go through regular means. If they don't wax philosophical too much
in their "conclusions" section of a publication, then I'm sure it would be
acceptd somewhere. Remember it wasn't too long ago that scientists talked
about God in their papers all the time (even Darwin). It is NOT implausible
that we might return to such a day, as long as separations are indeed made
between the scientific findings, and the "implications". With God, all
things are possible.
>I suppose that in three weeks you have read Phil's books, and thus you are
>justified in making this observation. But, in an case, I beg to differ
with
I listened to his radio broadcast (a long time ago) and so I can say that.
>I don't think anyone is claiming to have arrived at or soon-to-have
arrived at
>the knowledge of all truth. So I don't know who you think needs to hear
this or
>why they need to hear it. But it sounds like you are implying that ID
>proponents are not "letting go" of a desire for knowing all truth. What's
wrong
>with a desire to know all truth? (cf. John 16:13)
No I wasn't accusing the ID people or any one person or group. Nearly all
people that are guilty of this, I think. I don't think there is anything
wrong with a search for truth. But I do think (and have prayed and thought
on this many hours) that the search for truth is always limited within one
person's life; that is no one person will achieve the knowledge of the
"perfect or absolute truth about everything (except Jesus). Even the most
wise man on earth (Solomon, according to the Bible) was a grave sinner - he
had many mistresses (adultery) turned to idolatry, etc.
Wisdom and knowledge are good, but they are not the greatest (that would be
love, and then faith - see 1 Cor.). The sarch for knowledge and wisdom can
even become an idol, when the need to knowledge and truth outweighs one's
trust and faith in the Lord no matter what the knowledge reveals or appears
to reveal, or when searching for knowledge becomes an obsession or one's
greatest pleasure. It is something all intellectual Christians must reckon
with (myself included). I am not saying this as if it were a lecture that
you need to learn, I am only waxing philosophical about my personal
conclusions at this point on my life. Certainly they are subject to change.
God Bless,
Wendee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 13:50:33 EDT