Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

Hi John,

"They differentiate their model from ID because they don't stop at the
arbitrary constraint of remaining secular like ID chose to do as a strategy
to try to get into the classrooms."

There is nothing arbitrary about that constraint; I employ the constraint as
an example of intellectual honesty. If you have a method for
reverse-engineering the identity of a designer from the artifact, I am all
ears.

- Mike Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Schwarzwald" <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

> RTB's hallmark contribution to the ID debate is their "Testable Creation
> Model" so in short, yes the consider that not only Design but creation and
> creation by the God of the Bible is scientifically detectable. In fact,
> Dr. Ross's latest book was entitled "Creation as Science" which should
> remove any doubt about their stand on this issue.
>
> They differentiate their model from ID because they don't stop at the
> arbitrary constraint of remaining secular like ID chose to do as a
> strategy to try to get into the classrooms. Ironically though RTB's
> position on their model was that they should be able to get into the
> classrooms even when they conclude God and ID doesn't because they have
> better science than ID and their model is testable.
>
> I did hear a debate between Eugenie Scott and Dr. Ross once after his
> Creation as Science book came out and she was surprisingly docile to him
> and really gracious all things considered. I think she saw RTB as close to
> TE and mostly harmless at the time but I think it was before their
> positions against evolution and common descent were very well known.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 8:53 PM
>> Heya John,
>>
>> I haven't read Fuz Rana's books, though I was
>> glancing over reviews at
>> Amazon. Is Rana arguing that design can be scientifically
>> detected? I seem
>> to recall that some TEs (maybe even Ken Miller?) have
>> argued that ID belongs
>> in the philosophy of science category, and therefore
>> it's implied that some
>> ID arguments have value but are still not
>> 'scientific' themselves.
>>
>> I should also clarify that I'm not expressing hope that
>> TEs advance
>> scientific arguments for a creator - but other, powerful
>> intellectual
>> arguments that make reference to science can be offered to
>> bolster such a
>> thought.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:28 PM, John Walley
>> <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > The closest non-ID alternative I've found is
>> Reasons To Believe.
>> >
>> > At the height of the ID controversy RTB generated a
>> lot of dissension by
>> > publicly discredited ID and releasing statements
>> calling it "not science"
>> > etc. I personally discussed this with Bill Dembski and
>> he was visibly pained
>> > by RTB's position at the time.
>> >
>> > However in Fuz Rana's new book, "The
>> Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals
>> > the Creator's Artistry" they seemed to have
>> buried the hatchet as he is all
>> > over ID in this book. He attempts to take it further
>> by differentiating his
>> > argument from IC, but it is no longer accurate to
>> think that RTB is not on
>> > the ID bandwagon.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Schwarzwald
>> <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists,
>> Agnostics & Apatheists
>> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
>> > > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 6:21 PM
>> > > Greetings all, and thanks for the responses!
>> > >
>> > > For myself, my main concern is less one on one
>> > > correspondence (important as
>> > > that is) and more an issue of broader evangelism.
>> Websites,
>> > > mailing lists,
>> > > books, and such - I really consider those to be
>> invaluable,
>> > > particularly
>> > > nowadays. Part of this is just due to my
>> personality -
>> > > I'm very much a
>> > > computer-creature, so while I think about the
>> importance of
>> > > these things in
>> > > day to day life or in my neighborhood, the
>> internet is
>> > > something I'm
>> > > particularly concerned with. Especially in a day
>> where,
>> > > frankly, many people
>> > > are online more than they're involved with
>> their
>> > > communities besides.
>> > >
>> > > Towards that end, I'll throw out some things
>> I'd
>> > > like to see more - maybe
>> > > others will chime in on this as well.
>> > >
>> > > * I would love to see a more generally
>> aggressive, rather
>> > > than merely
>> > > defensive, attitude coming from specifically TEs
>> when it
>> > > comes to questions
>> > > of science. Let me be clear on something: I'm
>> pretty
>> > > much what you could
>> > > call a TE. I accept common descent and evolution.
>> While I
>> > > think evidence
>> > > points at something singular and special
>> happening with
>> > > human development, I
>> > > don't expect science to entertain thoughts of
>> miracles
>> > > in history (though I
>> > > believe not only in the resurrection, but that
>> believing in
>> > > the resurrection
>> > > is itself largely a reasonable position to hold.)
>> I'm
>> > > very skeptical of
>> > > 'scientific' ways of determining or
>> ruling out
>> > > design in nature (though I
>> > > think natural theology/philosophy has power
>> behind it.) But
>> > > the fact is,
>> > > whenever I read about someone talking about how
>> nature is a
>> > > brilliant
>> > > design, or see the fact that engineers take so
>> many cues
>> > > from nature, or
>> > > attacks on atheistic overreaches with regards to
>> scientific
>> > > questions
>> > > (neurology and the soul, etc), I can almost
>> guarantee that
>> > > I'm on an ID
>> > > site. Just now I finished reading an article by
>> Michael
>> > > Egnor hitting PZ
>> > > Myers hard on the subject of neurology as it
>> relates to
>> > > mind, self, and
>> > > soul. The ID sites in general routinely approach
>> science in
>> > > a thoughtful,
>> > > provocative way that points out the validity of
>> seeing
>> > > (whether scientific
>> > > or not, mind you) design in nature, whether on
>> Mike
>> > > Gene's cautious
>> > > inferment side of the spectrum, or Dembski's
>> bold (and
>> > > to me, overreaching)
>> > > declarations of obvious design. I tried finding
>> TE
>> > > equivalents online or in
>> > > book form - and I turn up next to nothing. The
>> closest
>> > > non-ID alternative
>> > > I've found is Reasons To Believe. This, I
>> think, should
>> > > be seen as a
>> > > problem.
>> > >
>> > > * I would also love to see a more aggressive
>> attitude
>> > > towards atheism
>> > > (particularly the scientism-prone New Atheism)
>> itself, as
>> > > well as the
>> > > conclusions one is forced to confront in a
>> worldview where
>> > > atheism is not
>> > > merely a possibility, but a certainty. John
>> Lennox, William
>> > > Lane Craig, and
>> > > others do this to great effect - but frankly, I
>> think it
>> > > needs to be done
>> > > more. Let me qualify that when I say
>> 'aggressive',
>> > > I don't mean insulting or
>> > > dismissive. I mean assertive - a willingness to
>> point out
>> > > contradictions,
>> > > points of ignorance, and otherwise that are,
>> frankly, many
>> > > times glossed
>> > > over. Lennox and Craig, for example, are more
>> than willing
>> > > to cede that AAAs
>> > > are capable of leading moral lives - but they
>> also stress
>> > > that what
>> > > constitutes a 'moral life' only makes
>> sense within
>> > > an ultimately
>> > > theistic/teleological framework, and that
>> sacrificing the
>> > > objective
>> > > morality, measures, and standards that consistent
>> atheism
>> > > cannot accomodate
>> > > has wide-reaching implications that are so often
>> ignored.
>> > >
>> > > * I'd love to see AAAs targetted in
>> particular, rather
>> > > than written off as
>> > > lost causes or worse. While it would be a new
>> area to
>> > > explore, I think a
>> > > balance between taking skeptical questions
>> seriously,
>> > > addressing concerns
>> > > about the compatibility between Christianity and
>> science,
>> > > stressing the
>> > > value of Christianity's truth and hope, and
>> more. In
>> > > fact, there's a
>> > > category I would hope people give some thought to
>> - that of
>> > > the agnostic
>> > > theist. I think for a decent number of AAAs,
>> their position
>> > > is taken in part
>> > > because they see Christianity as a faith
>> you're either
>> > > direly certain of, or
>> > > you simply are not a Christian. They see no room
>> for
>> > > entertaining doubt,
>> > > therefore no room for overcoming doubt - and
>> ultimately, no
>> > > room for hope.
>> > > So towards the AAAs, I would see two points of
>> importance -
>> > > stressing that
>> > > the Christian message is one worthy of hope, and
>> at the
>> > > same time that there
>> > > is a strong foundation upon which to ground that
>> hope.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM, John Burgeson
>> (ASA
>> > > member) <
>> > > hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 10/28/08, Schwarzwald
>> <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "* How would you approach an atheist,
>> agnostic,
>> > > or apatheist about
>> > > > christianity? Would the approach differ from
>> how you
>> > > would approach
>> > > > someone of another faith, or a lapsed member
>> of your
>> > > own faith?"
>> > > >
>> > > > This is always a good question. My own
>> approach is to
>> > > listen a lot to
>> > > > what the other person has to say, and
>> respond about
>> > > Xtianity ONLY when
>> > > > the opportunity appears. I have one person
>> in mind
>> > > right now -- a
>> > > > professed atheist, although she probably has
>> never
>> > > thought things
>> > > > through very much. She is the owner/editor
>> of a
>> > > publication I write
>> > > > for -- always open to my writing on Xtian
>> issues as
>> > > they pertain to
>> > > > the subject -- and was quick to offer my
>> wife, pastor
>> > > of the local
>> > > > church, a half page to write whatever she
>> wanted to. I
>> > > keep tossing
>> > > > this good lady "teasers," so far
>> (3 + years)
>> > > she has not (yet) pursued
>> > > > any of them. Maybe she never will (with me).
>> But I try
>> > > to "plant
>> > > > seeds."
>> > > >
>> > > > I have another person in mind -- a long time
>> (60+
>> > > years) friend, who
>> > > > WAS a frervent Xtian when I was not
>> anything,
>> > > witnessed to us while we
>> > > > were in high school, etc. At college he
>> totally lost
>> > > his faith and
>> > > > embraced atheism. To this day he simply
>> avoids the
>> > > subject. With him,
>> > > > I try to be a little more forceful, but so
>> far no
>> > > success at all. He
>> > > > has decided that Xtianity is simply not
>> credible, and
>> > > that's that.
>> > > >
>> > > > I have a few others -- each one, as I think
>> of it, a
>> > > different
>> > > > situation. There is no "silver
>> bullet." So I
>> > > try to listen a lot,
>> > > > speak less, for I'm not likely to be
>> heard if I
>> > > start preaching! <G>
>> > > >
>> > > > * Do you see science, or an understanding of
>> science,
>> > > as having a role
>> > > > to play in such a conversation?"
>> > > >
>> > > > If that's of interest to the other
>> person, yes.
>> > > Generally, it is not.
>> > > >
>> > > > * What common misconceptions or
>> misunderstandings do
>> > > you think exist
>> > > > among AAAs about Christianity?"
>> > > >
>> > > > They see the Ken Hams, the Hagees, the sorry
>> excuses
>> > > for Xtianity
>> > > > represented by many televangelists, and
>> think they
>> > > represent Xtianity.
>> > > > Maybe they try a church -- a dull of sloppy
>> sermon
>> > > turns them away.
>> > > > Friend wife and I went to a different church
>> a month
>> > > or so ago -- the
>> > > > minister mumbled and it was next to
>> impossible to
>> > > understand him. We
>> > > > left early and that place will not see us
>> again.
>> > > >
>> > > > * Have you seen any effective targetting of
>> AAAs by
>> > > any particular
>> > > > person, ministry, or even faith?"
>> > > >
>> > > > I wish the answer could be "yes."
>> The ASA is
>> > > the best around; we are
>> > > > not doing a good job. But we try, and, I
>> think, have
>> > > some influence
>> > > > in the science community.
>> > > >
>> > > > Welcome to the list.
>> > > >
>> > > > Burgy
>> > > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1757 - Release Date: 10/30/2008
> 2:35 PM
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 23:03:58 2008