From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 10:41:58 EDT
See my comments below,
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
To: "Joel Cannon" <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID (fwd)..Fine Tuning
>
> Joel Cannon wrote in part:
>
> > First, I think that [Don] would acknowledge that needing to deal with
> > doubt by recourse to fine-tuning or other "design" arguments makes the
> > Christian claim that God reveals himself most clearly in Jesus less
> > credible.
>
> "Need" is not the right word. If something is useful to me, I use it.
>
> God revealed himself most clearly in Jesus, but we don't have Jesus except
> in some spiritual sense. Nobody I know has Jesus incarnate. Every
> Christian must depend on someone or something less than Jesus incarnate.
> Children need parents. Christians need fellow believers. In no way do
such
> needs make the witness of Jesus less important. Reductio ad absurdum:
> Anyone who needs the Bible makes the claim that God reveals himself most
> clearly in Jesus less credible. Conclusion: We don't throw out useful
> witnesses just because somewhere there happens to be a superior witness.
>
> > Second, the bible and Christian tradition holds that the primary sphere
> > of YHWH's revelation is in human history. More particularly,
> > Christians believe that YHWH revealed himself in the history of
> > Israel, and has revealed himself most clearly and most decisively in
> > Jesus of Nazareth. To be complete, I should add that Christian
> > tradition and the Bible also talk about having confidence because of
> > through the Holy Spirit (the experience of God).
>
> Agreed. But this "experience of God" is not as consistent as a rod of
iron.
> Everybody suffers letdowns.
>
> If you were consistent here with your first point, you'd have to throw out
> all revelation in human history except that of Jesus lest you demean him.
>
> > If God's actions in history and Jesus are the ways YHWH has chosen to
> > reveal himself, isn't that the most natural way for us to a) deal with
> > doubt, and to b) engage unbelief? ....
>
> If that works unfailingly for you, go with it. It doesn't work
unfailingly
> for everyone.
>
> > Third and finally, the intelligent design defense (and the Dawkins
> > attack) and Don's sense of assurance from fine-tuning are based on an
> > assumption of what God must be like .....
>
> I won't address others' assumptions. My own assumption is that God is the
> creator and that from observing the creation we should be able to know
> something about him. People of God have always believed this, and the
Bible
> supports the idea. The apostle Paul no doubt had many OT references such
as
> those in Job and Psalms in mind when he said (in Romans 1), "...God's
> invisible qualities...have been clearly seen...from what has been
made...."
> Discoveries of science now make it much more difficult for many
> knowledgeable people to see God in the creation. I don't have a problem
> seeing God in the creation in a mystical sense, but I sometimes do in an
> intellectual sense. Intellectually we don't see God, we must infer him.
> The fine tuning is one of several things that helps me make that
inference.
>
> Just as Job looked at God with awe in the thunderstorm, I look at God with
> awe in the cosmic fine tuning. And if I suppress the intellect just a
bit,
> I also can see God in the thunderstorm.
>
> Don
Bob's comments:
As has been pointed out many times on this list, the issue that
underlies this argument is the claim of the ID proponents that God as a
creator (whether of the whole universe or of the bacterium flagellium) can
be identified and known scientifically. All Christian believers can agree
that "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps. 19:1) and that God
"cause[s] the grass to grow for the cattle and plants for human use" (Ps.
104:14), for that is what revelation declares. But such affirmations are
based on revelation and are statements of faith, not of science.
The question is whether all of the evidence in nature for fine-tuning
qualifies as scientific evidence for the existence of a creating God. Each
of the formulations for fine-tuning are labeled as a "Principle" (e.g., the
Strong Anthropic Principle) and not as a "Theory." In much the same way,
Howard Van Till speaks of his "Robust Formational Economy Principle." Those
in the scientific community have been careful in their language; they do not
think that this evidence leads to a formulation that qualifies as a
scientific theory. Theologians who find the anthropic principle of great
interest (e.g., John Polkinghorne) have said that this principle affords
them "reasons to believe," and speak rather of a "theology of nature" rather
than "natural theology." I agree with this caution. The rush to declare
that fine-tuning is scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, as
Wilker in his misleading and historically flawed piece does, runs into some
roadbumps, which some on the list have already raised.
One aspect of the problem here is that the ID proponents have declared
that they are following a different episteme and proffer what they call a
"theistic science." Perhaps, they have done so in more recent publications
than I have read, but in my view they have yet to demonstrate just how
"theistic science" works in practice. This is complicated by the fact that
discussion between ID proponents and critics like Howard and Ken Miller is
marked by a lack of clarity on the part of ID proponents as to what they
mean by "Darwinism," "naturalism," and other terms; it is hard to keep up
with all of their permutations, which have taken on an almost Darwinian cast
(microevolution, of course).
That is why many of us who think the ID is both scientifically flawed
and theologically dubious insist that they make clear what it is they are
arguing. Does their theistic science mean that they believe the distinction
between theological and scientific arguments for a creator/designer is
ultimately meaningless? At times it appears to be the case, despite the
fact that they insist that they can demonstrate the existence of an
"intelligent designer" on the basis of science alone. They have not done
so, and up to this point their arguments (more mathematical than empirical)
seem to overlap the scientific and the theological.
Finally, it is evident to those of us that are following the fortunes of
the ID proponents that their main aim at the moment is to play the political
system to interject their program into science education. Gushing
propaganda like Wilker's article (I did finish it) is one of the latest in a
concerted effort to depict ID as the bandwagon of the future that we all
ought to hop on. No wonder: given what ID has come up with so far, and
given their promotion of a "theistic science," they not likely to succeed in
establishing their program into public education except through political
pressure and manipulation.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 10:42:28 EDT