RE: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

>ID could have made a real difference when it was faced with
>intellectually satisfied atheists by showing that Christians can be
>equally satisfied with science.

I completely agree with this statement. They should have made a defensive
argument instead of offensive.

>What do I see as a positive contribution of ID?....
>In other words, ID has focused Christians to look at these issues and
>many seem to be making a right choice, although there are still too
>many who continue to believe in the 'gospel of the flagellum'

It is a process and it will take time. These people are not scientists and
don't know the details of the science nor appreciate the nuances of
difference between MN and PN. And the obvious TE conclusions of science are
going to be hard for some of these to swallow theologically, even worse than
an old earth.

But the pendulum has started shifting and we don't have to be ashamed of our
faith anymore in the light of science. That is a good thing out of ID, even
if it was indirect.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:18 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

I thank John for his overview of what he believes ID has contributed.
While ID is undoubtably a response to what some saw as an atheistic
foundation to science, their response has been counterproductive and
in many ways quite devastating for religious faith.
People honestly have come to the conclusion that not only is it
legally permissible to teach ID but also that science strongly
supports ID. Combine this with a conflation between methodological and
philosophical naturalism and people are quick to reject good science.
Imagine the cost to faith when these people find out what we already
know, namely that ID's scientific status is far from stellar.
Christianity may no longer be on the defense when it comes to science,
but rather than embracing science, Christianity seems to be relying on
poor science. I recently posted how the elders of the Baptist Trinity
Church in Norman Oklahoma invited Dembski because they believed that
Dembski and ID could form a formidable 'weapon' to penetrate the
university with the Gospel.
The results were disastrous and exposed how ID failed to live up to
its scientific promises. That Dembski had to agree that common
ancestry between apes and humans is doubtful and that he will never
accept a scientific explanation of ID's flagellum, forever raising
the bar, was not well received by the students. Rather than
penetrating the University with the Gospel, they were left to defend
the Gospel from being linked to poor arguments.
In the past I have warned more than once about ID running afoul of St
Augustine, and I believe this case shows in full depth what ID has to
contribute to faith.
ID could have made a real difference when it was faced with
intellectually satisfied atheists by showing that Christians can be
equally satisfied with science. Instead they chose a path in which
they confused methodological and philosophical naturalism causing much
harm.
Their heart may have been in the right place but their execution has
been a failure from the start and it is only getting worse.
What do I see as a positive contribution of ID? Mostly an indirect
side effect of ID is that people like Collings, Miller etc have found
a willing ear from Christians and are shown how science and religious
faith are never to be seen as enemies, or both will suffer.
In other words, ID has focused Christians to look at these issues and
many seem to be making a right choice, although there are still too
many who continue to believe in the 'gospel of the flagellum'

On 9/23/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Obviously the subject of ID is sensitive on this list and provokes
> polarizing opinions. Perhaps it is worthwhile to try to attempt to define
> what exactly about ID is and is not worthwhile. I would very much like to
> see whether any sort of a consensus could be had on this as I feel it is a
> very important issue to define.
>
> Firstly, I will not attempt to defend the science of ID as I agree that an
> argument from ignorance with data we don't have does not logically equate
to
> a proof for God. Nevermind all the YEC and anti-common descent stuff. On
> this I will agree with Pim that ID conclusions are scientifically vacuous.
>
> However, I am still indebted to the ID authors as a whole for if nothing
> else bringing all these issues to light and helping show that the case for
> naturalism was not as airtight as was being presented by mainstream
science
> just a few years ago. If nothing else they have educated the entire public
> on science and faith issues and helped keep science more honest and have
> kept the atheism component of science in check somewhat.
>
> Also realize that YEC is on its last leg now among thinking Christians and
> this is almost entirely due to the impact of ID in reaching the churches
> with these design arguments. YEC is on the defense now against ID and that
> is a good thing.
>
> Also, there are some aspects of the design argument that are valid I
think.
> At some level I think we all agree on God's involvement in the creation
and
> that equates to some level of design. The Mt. Rushmore and John Loves Mary
> written on the beach arguments and valid. It takes a lot of scientific and
> rhetorical wrangling to undo the obvious impact of the truth of that
> observation. I haven't been able to put my finger on exactly why we have a
> disconnect on this but I think it is because we are too quick to restrict
> truth to science.
>
> Granted maybe obvious signs of design technically does not prove the
> existence of God and maybe that is not a scientific argument, but it still
> remains a logical and valid deduction to most people. If it didn't we
> wouldn't have had the issues with ID that we have had. It doesn't have to
be
> science to be true. And this truth of design and high improbability
> characteristics in the universe wasn't obvious to most Christians a few
> years ago. Can't we give them credit for that?
>
> I think they have maybe overplayed their hand in the public sector too
much
> and it was a mistake not to repudiate YEC, but they have been successful
in
> promoting a view that Christian's no longer have to be on the defensive
> toward science about their faith because much of the scientific evidence
> supports a creation type scenario. This was atheism's dirty little secret
> until ID blew the lid off of it. Failing that, now they have to fall back
> onto confusing MN with PN and technical definitions of what science is and
> isn't to get the genie back in the bottle.
>
> This I think has been a very positive contribution of ID even in spite of
> all the less flattering episodes. I am reminded of the guy in the NT
> baptizing in the name of John after Jesus began his ministry. He was doing
> what he could with what he knew and Jesus didn't condemn him for it.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Ted Davis
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:50 PM
> To: pvm.pandas@gmail.com; john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID
>
> >>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 09/22/07 7:54 PM >>>, who is not an ASA
> member, writes as follows:
>
> Funny how poorly chosen analogies can do similar damage as the
> scientific and theological vacuity of Intelligent Design.
> Denyse and Behe and Dembski are fellow Christians and should know
> better. As far as Dawkins or PZ are concerned, I am puzzled by the
> obsessive manner in which some seem to view these people. However, I
> have found both of them, and especially PZ, a delight to read when
> discussing issues of science.
>
> Ted dissents from this entirley. PZ's over-the-top, in-your-face trashing
> of anything resembling traditional religion is one of the main reasons why
I
> questioned the objectivity of PT in my article about the Dover trial for
> "Religion in the News." Both Dawkins and PZ, IMO, are correctly seen as
> lacking objectivity. We've discussed this a thousand times before,
relative
> to Dawkins. Based on what I've seen PZ write on PT and on his own blog
> (neither of which I peruse often, but both of which I read at the time the
> article was written), I'd put him in the same category with Dawkins. I
> suspect most, perhaps all, ASA members would do likewise.
>
> On 9/22/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote (and Pim was
> commenting on it) the following:
>
> > Sometimes I get the impression here that if only all the creationists
and
> > IDer's would get their science right and apologize for all the confusion
> and
> > harm they have caused over the years, then all the conflict between
> science
> > and faith would vanish and we would all live happily ever after. There
is
> a
> > double standard in putting the onus of this problem solely on the likes
of
> > Denyse and Behe but Dawkins and PZ Myers get passes.
> >
> > I think the downside of this oversimplistic view of the world is that
> > obsessed ID bashing TE's run the risk of being used by the atheists like
> > Stalin used his domestic communist sympathizers during the cold war.
> >
>
> Ted agrees with the first paragraph, but not the second. The rhetoric
here
> seems somewhat similar to that of PZ and Dawkins, but in reverse. I don't
> know whether or not you are an ASA member, John, but I suspect you aren't.
> Within ASA you would find a lot of IDs and a lot of TEs, with quite a few
> others who would not place themselves in either of those two groups.
(This
> particular list is not closely representative of the ASA membership as a
> whole, although some ASA members participate--there are also many who
> aren't.)
>
> I've seen some ID bashing here, and at ASA meetings--though at meetings
> there are many papers also by ID supporters, and lots that just evaluate
> arguments without bashing anyone. Internet exchanges pretty much
> everywhere, on any topic, are so often egg throwing contests and nothing
> more.
>
> The truth deserves better than that.
>
> Ted
>
> 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.
>

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 Mon Sep 24 00:47:46 2007