Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

Peter,

This is close to a one liner and is a fairly simply answer. But it
captures the essence of the matter. It's what I taught (and will be
teaching) in our adult ed class on faith and science.

The foundations of science are consistent with the Christian world
and life view. Some would even argue that they are based on such.
Thus, in general, the fruit of science can be trusted as providing
reliable knowledge. For the most part, evolutionary biology (that's
my translation of your term "Darwinism") is general accepted science,
well tested by the scientific community over that past 50-75 years.
Thus, some Christians align with evolutionary biology in exactly the
same way that they align with any other science (natural or
otherwise). It's creational revelation and is from God.

This doesn't settle all the issues and there are some interesting
questions about how to think about what scripture says. But most of
us have a fundamental belief that what we learn about in our
investigation of the created world comes to us from God (who is the
creator and whose activity in the world is described in part by our
scientific theories).

As for David's original question...I can only say that I am willing
to entertain the possibility of ID in principle, i.e. something that
defies past, present, and foreseeable future explanations. However, I
can't really think of any examples where I can't imagine a reasonable
non-ID solution (molecular machines, origin of life, genetic
information). Thus, ID "adds" a recognition of possible real limits
to our theorizing. Things that should be taken in the practice of
science as "givens" or "just the way it is". As such, it needs to be
empirical, in that if a non-ID explanation is forthcoming that it
steps aside.

TG

On Sep 9, 2007, at 2:09 AM, Peter Loose wrote:

>
>
> 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:
> 07/09/2007 16:40
>
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

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 17:00:53 2007