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

1) I have always recognized that ID makes scientific claims & have said that they should be evaluated as such - by those in relevant fields such as biochemistry, evolutionary biology & information theory. Since those are not my scientific specialties, I've generally left my relatively sparse comments on the scientific claims of ID
at the level of generality.

2) Gregory is apparently unaware that Dembski & Johnson have made explicitly theological claims about ID when speaking to their supporters, through they have been unwilling to engage in theological dialogue with those who disagree with them. What I have said is that there are theological issues connected with ID (& that would be the case whether or not its supporters had raised them), that they ought to be discussed openly, & I have presented my own theological arguments. The unwillingness of IDers to discuss theological issues gives the lie to Gregory's claim that they have contributed to science-theology dialogue. The fact that a lot of ill-informed people have latched onto the slogan "Intelligent Design" on school boards &c is not indicative of serious dialogue but of the fact that such people have simply found one more excuse to hold on to their preconceptions.

3) One has to wonder how seriously to take a person who thinks that "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is a valid argument.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

  George's case is a classic one of leading a horse to water. On the one hand, when people protest 'ID is scientific,' George responds with quotes from Dembski, Behe, Johnson and others that indicate ID's ties with Christian thought - these three think the Designer is G-D of the Bible. On the other hand, when it comes to making a contribution about the relationship between science and religion, George says "they won't talk theology." Thirsty, but obviously, and perhaps stubbornly, not willing to drink.

  Let it be noted that none of the three persons I mentioned are theologians, so what George is really saying: 'Come into my playground, let's play fairly!' :-) How about we just take any one of those three persons and compare the number of books sold in the past five years with the number of books sold by George, or for that matter any other TE? (Francis Collins would likely top the list for TE's, even for EC's - evolutionary creationists?)

  John has pointed out that Behe's views are in some ways compatible with some features of TE/EC, but that he disagrees with Darwinian evolution and seeks to expose 'Darwinian fancies.' It would be a much more balanced conversation for TEs/ECs and TNs of they would point out Darwinism's weak points and even his errors, rather than contributing to the myth of Darwin's all-greatness, as the Brights do. Where/when do TEs/ECs part company with Darwin?

  In coining a new concept duo, the IDM (the word 'movement,' George, is neither a physics nor a theology concept, as I'm using it) has succeeded in drawing a lot of attention to topics that concern both science and religion. Apparently, in over half of the states of your Union, school districts are talking about ID and how to teach about origins and processes of life. Of course, the dialogue need not remain in natural science classrooms alone, but may spill over into philosophy and religious studies, as well as the oh-so-maligned social-humanitarian fields.

  The idea of directing or intervening in "the evolutionary process by determining the outcome of quantum processes involved in mutations," which George attributes to Bob Russell, might be a good example of what this thread it really about. It is not about ID per se, but about 'theological naturalism.' Does Russell subject his theology to naturalism by suggesting that evolution is a universal process, an eternal process, that the Creator merely participates in, or does he propose that the Creator created evolution, thus existing outside of and in control of it? If the creation is said to be 'evolving,' can that evolution not be understood entirely as a naturalistic process?

  Much of this comes back to the absolute characteristic of 'hiddenness,' which George promotes, but the unhiddenness which all Christians acknowledge challenges his view, this time in the word 'intervention.'

  Arago

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

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 13:02:59 2007