Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

Hi John,

> 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.
>

I agree that many TE's share some ID views. However, I think David O.'s
question was really about anti-evolutionary OEC's attraction to ID. (TE
relationship to ID is a different question). And I believe point #1 below
(ie. Attraction to positive confirmation of unambiguous scientificly
detectable divine action) is a significant, if not the most significant,
factor for many OECs gravitation toward the ID camp.

> 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.
>
I think there are lots of TE's that take a "literal" interpretation of Adam
and Eve. See Glenn Morton's site at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ and Dick
Fischer's site at http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/. My opinion
(communicated to Dick prior to Randy's poll results on Denis Alexander's 5
options on the interpretation of the Fall) was that something like his view
was probably the majority view among Evangelical TE's – and option C indeed
obtained the majority in our small informal poll. (For the record, I chose
B but might have voted C or A on another day).
thanks,

Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com

On 9/9/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
>
> *To:* 'David Opderbeck' <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ;
> 'AmericanScientificAffiliation' <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: 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: 07/09/200716:40
>
>

-- 
Steve
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.