RE: [asa] What Does ID Add?

1) ID proposes that divine action is scientifically detectable. For
many OECs, TE not only gets rid of an apologetic tool as you stated, but
also can undermine personal faith (if detectable divine action is important
to one's personal faith). It also seems to fly in the face of the bible
stating in certain passages that God's action is detectable (eg. Rom 1:20).

2) TE seems to blur the line between human and non-human - at least the
continuous process makes articulating the difference more difficult.

These are great additional observations. But I contend that at least #1
above doesn't necessarily define the dividing line between OEC and TE
either. In fact I think I agree with #1 and I think many TE's would as well.
For instance, in the MWI thread we just discussed, many TE's agreed that the
CI argument was a valid evidence for a universe crafted by God and that the
appeal to multi-verses to explain our universe is disingenuous.

On the second point, I agree that this is the real dividing line between OEC
and TE. As I mentioned, all the other issues can still be reconciled more or
less with a literal interpretation of Genesis but I have never heard of a TE
position that claimed Darwinism was compatible with a literal interpretation
of Adam and Eve.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Steve Martin
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 8:55 AM
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: Peter Loose; David Opderbeck; AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

Hi David,

you asked:

Two things come to my mind: (1) ID might help support certain concordist
"day-age" views that require sudden developmental jumps in kinds of animals;
and (2) ID might serve as a useful apologetic device against folks who think
evolution gets rid of God. Is there anything else? Particularly for OEC's
who are open to "framework" and other understandings of Genesis 1 and 2, is
the potential apologetic value of ID worth the candle of the divide between
OEC-ID and TE?

In contrast to John below, I really don't think the most important factor is
the interpretation of Genesis. As you noted, many OECs can feel comfortable
with "non-literal" interpretations, and many TEs insist on a more-or-less
"literal" interpretation - so I don't think this is the dividing line. I
believe that the most important factor in OEC attraction to ID (and, even
though these are not mutually exclusive, away from TE) is an understanding
of divine action and the special position of humanity.

1) ID proposes that divine action is scientifically detectable. For
many OECs, TE not only gets rid of an apologetic tool as you stated, but
also can undermine personal faith (if detectable divine action is important
to one's personal faith). It also seems to fly in the face of the bible
stating in certain passages that God's action is detectable (eg. Rom 1:20).

2) TE seems to blur the line between human and non-human - at least the
continuous process makes articulating the difference more difficult.

thanks,
 

Steve Martin (CSCA)

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com

On 9/9/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

Peter

Before you pose more questions please consider the accusations of fraud in
connection with the Peppered Moth I highlighted.

It is clear that you do not wish to consider them and thus you are condoning
lying. How do you reconcile this with your claim to be a Christian?

As for your question it can be easily answered. Who are the Christians
identified strongly with Darwinism? I can't name any, except those possibly
in the sea of Faith group - who don't understand Darwin anyway.

Also what do you mean by Darwinism?

Michael

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Loose <mailto:peterwloose@compuserve.com>

To: 'David Opderbeck' <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> ;
'AmericanScientificAffiliation' <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:09 AM

Subject: RE: [asa] What Does ID Add?

David:

May I pose the same form of question as you concluded with?

"Why is it seemingly important for many Christians to identify strongly with
Darwinism?"

This is looking for much more than one-liner quick quips.

Thank you

Peter

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf
Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:23 AM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: [asa] What Does ID Add?

I'd particularly like to hear from folks who are sympathetic to ID and OEC
-- what do you think ID adds with respect to relating science, faith and
scripture?

As I read materials from OEC's who are sympathetic to ID and hesitant or
antagonistic about TE, I often feel a sort of disconnect. When discussing
the age of the earth, OEC's mention all sorts of things about God revealing
himself through nature as well as through scripture, doing our best to take
all of God's revelation together, not interpreting scripture in ways that
seem to clearly contradict well established scientific findings, and so on.
And yet, when the same folks talk about evolution and ID, the discussion
seems to change entirely -- now the discussion on the scientific side is all
about questioning the assumptions of science, scientism, and so forth.

I'm trying to understand why so many OEC's find it so important to critique
"macro"evolution in this fashion. As far as I'm concerned, the most vexing
problems with a TE position -- death before the fall, theodicy, who / what /
when was Adam, the fall, original sin, what / when was the flood, what is
the present "groaning" of creation, how will creation be renewed or
"restored" in the eschaton -- are equally difficult whether one is an OEC or
a TE. So why is "macro"evolution such a dividing line for most OEC's?

Two things come to my mind: (1) ID might help support certain concordist
"day-age" views that require sudden developmental jumps in kinds of animals;
and (2) ID might serve as a useful apologetic device against folks who think
evolution gets rid of God. Is there anything else? Particularly for OEC's
who are open to "framework" and other understandings of Genesis 1 and 2, is
the potential apologetic value of ID worth the candle of the divide between
OEC-ID and TE?

Note -- I'm not asking for critiques of the vaucousness or non-vaucousness
of ID. I'm more interested in a question of identity -- why is it seemingly
important for many OEC's to identify strongly with ID?

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 07/09/2007
16:40

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 9 09:16:45 2007