From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 07:26:58 EDT
Preston writes:
...I have little or no expectation that anyone who
> doesn't already believe in God would have their mind changed by an
> _argument_ from nature. I think I have known at least one person who
> came to faith in Christ by a path that began with scientific study
> leading to belief in a god. But I don't think I've ever heard of
> anyone having their mind changed by someone else's _argument_ from
> nature.
Preston,
Your comments lead me to this "Why?" question: what motivates YECs and
IDers to try to convince others that they can provide scientific evidence
for a creating/designing god? Especially in this country, where the vast
majority of Americans already are believers in a personal god, including 40%
of scientists. I could see that an apologetic purpose might be a reason in
highly secularized societies such as those in Europe, where religion has
come to play a much less influential role, but why in the USA, where both
groups are strongest in numbers and in the impact they have had on the
thinking of people? It's not like they would need to convince vast numbers
of Americans that God exists or that God is a creating god.
Many YECs appear to be motivated by a conviction that belief in
evolution has led much of the public astray morally, that it is the cause of
people abandoning biblically-based moral practices that were once more
characteristic of American culture. Ken Ham expresses this concern in his
lectures, books, and films, as Rich Fausette noted in recent exchanges.
Their strong insistance on literal inerrancy of the Bible is connected to
this. That "the fault lies in evolution" is the wrong explanation doesn't
change the fact that they have it and that it motivates much of their
apologetic.
But what motivates the ID group? Why does this group also bring a
crusading zeal to their movement? Does it lie simply in their conviction
that "Naturalism" is a dragon that needs to be slain? Anyone have any
thoughts about this?
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Preston Garrison" <garrisonp@uthscsa.edu>
To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID (fwd)..Fine Tuning
> I want to put a question to the group in relation to the argument
> about whether natural theology has any value as an apologetic device.
>
> Awhile back a friend sent me something he was writing for me to
> critique. It was an extended loose argument for a divine intelligence
> based on detailed consideration of biological marvels like cells and
> vision and the brain. He did not use specific probability arguments
> like Dembski, but the goal seemed much the same -this stuff is way
> too intelligent looking to have come into existence by chance.
>
> I struggled with the critiqueing because I found that I that I didn't
> have much enthusiasm for his project. When I reflected on why I felt
> that, it seemed to me that, while I have some expectation that a
> person might come to believe in God from their personal experience of
> or study of nature, I have little or no expectation that anyone who
> doesn't already believe in God would have their mind changed by an
> _argument_ from nature. I think I have known at least one person who
> came to faith in Christ by a path that began with scientific study
> leading to belief in a god. But I don't think I've ever heard of
> anyone having their mind changed by someone else's _argument_ from
> nature.
>
> Anyone know of any example? - best of all, yourself?
>
>
> Preston G.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 07:27:44 EDT