Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

Charles, it's very interesting that you mention the "knit together in the
womb" argument. I once made that same argument on an ID forum -- that we
can describe the development of a fetus in naturalistic terms and don't need
to point to "gaps" in the development of a fetus in order to consider each
new human life a special act of God's providence. One apparently
knowledgeable person, however, responded that we know almost nothing about
fetal development, in particular about how zygotic cells begin to
differentiate into specialized cells to create the different parts of the
human body. He suggested that this question of differentiation represents a
huge "gap" in fetal development and that it is premature to assume that we
will be able to ever come up with a satisfying naturalistic explanation for
it. I don't think he was suggesting that there is a clear act of miraculous
intervention in fetal development, but he was suggesting that this might be
the kind of mystery that natural explanations alone can't fully crack.

On 7/24/07, Austerberry, Charles <cfauster@creighton.edu> wrote:
>
> There are many things I appreciate about Behe. Not only does he
> acknowledge the evidence for common ancestry, he also acknowledges that
> neo-Darwinian evolution is compatible with Christian faith; he's noted
> that he used to be a theistic evolutionist himself, and changed to
> intelligent design for scientific rather than theological reasons. Behe
> has also bothered (with Snoke) to publish a bit of his ID work as a
> primary article in a peer-reviewed journal (Protein Science).
>
> The only problem is that the science in that article and in his books
> and review articles appears to be wrong, as far as I and most other
> scientists can tell. His probability calculations, upon which
> everything is based, employ numbers and operations that seem arbitrary
> and questionable at best, appear to be off by several orders of
> magnitude in some cases, and in other cases appear to be simply
> irrelevant to the problem. Talk Origins and Talk Design web sites
> provide much detailed critique of Behe's ID work, as do some published
> articles and books referenced at those web sites.
>
> To be fair, it's not easy to make a case for intelligent design when the
> designer is unidentified and potentially supernatural. Much of the
> evidence and logic used to search for instances in which humans (or even
> space aliens) might have designed things is not available when the
> designer is both unidentified and potentially supernatural. So ID has
> set itself a challenging task indeed.
>
> Behe seems honestly convinced that he has accomplished the task. I
> don't view his efforts as toxic, just mistaken. In fact, his work has
> probably prompted some worthwhile work done by others to refute him.
> However, I don't understand why Behe contributed to the Pandas book, or
> why he makes common cause with anti-evolution crusaders who do not share
> his theological and scientific views. Indeed, some of the tactics of
> some of Behe's ID colleagues could be considered rather toxic. But,
> some of the tactics employed by some critics of ID are also pretty
> toxic. I guess that's what happens when scientific questions get sucked
> into a culture war.
>
> Maybe the evolution wars will end when we see God as creator of species
> much as we see God as creator of each human life. As George Murphy and
> others have pointed out, there isn't an Intelligent Embryologist
> Movement, even though the Bible says that God "knits" each of us in our
> mother's womb, and even though biology is far short of completely
> explaining embryological development. The pro-life (anti-abortion)
> movement doesn't claim that a "divine spark" is needed to enliven
> non-living matter when a human embryo is created; rather, they accept
> modern biology in full. What we need is a movement that defends the
> theological concept of creation while accepting modern biology as fully
> as does the pro-life movement.
>
> Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
>
> P.S. - I have heard some anti-abortion arguments based on denying that
> humans share common ancestry with other species. I have also heard
> pro-choice arguments based on denying the humanity of early human
> embryos, claiming that they are more like nonhuman life at certain
> embryonic stages. Both of those arguments are fallacious sideshows that
> do not represent the main pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.
>
> **************************************************
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:17:16 -0400
> From: "John Walley" <john@walley-world.org>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' =
> Naturalism
>
>
> In Behe's new book he makes it clear he clear he accepts common descent.
>
> The only component of evolution he takes issue with is the supposed
> power of
> random mutation. Is this still toxic?
>
> Granted most of the criticism of Dembski and Johnson before in the past
> is valid, but I'm curious if ASA will allow Behe to redeem himself if he
> disassociates himself with them which he seems to have done in this
> book. Is
> common descent sufficient enough evidence of taking evolution seriously?
>
>
> I would think as TE's, most ASA members would now be on board with
> Behe's new arguments excepting the fact that possibly he takes the
> conclusion
> too far and suggest interventionist Design instead of an embedded
> natural
> process of just design of unknown natural origins. He does do a good job
> though in my opinion of illuminating the observed limits of random
> mutation which I think is a worthy contribution.
>
> Behe compares Darwin's randomness to Maxwell's "aether" which was widely
> accepted before Michelson-Morley. Maybe like science, IDM is a growth
> process where the truth becomes more clear over time and people's
> presuppositions are exposed and falsified, on both sides?
>
> John Walley (ASA lurker)
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 24 10:30:26 2007