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

Mike,

As we have mentioned in other threads, RTB is all about identifying the Designer. In fact that is what they claim differentiates them from ID whose secular approach they consider disingenuous, impotent and "not science". They say that the obvious conclusion from science is the God of the Bible and furthermore this should be able to be taught in the schools.

James or Bob Stuart who is on staff with RTB and copied on this email can hook you up with them for a more detailed explanation but in short their methodology comes down to the holy books of each religion and the Bible being more closely aligned with the record of nature than any of the others which I think is probably right.

As I said, I agree with this deduction and think it is a great contribution to the church, but I just don't think it is science. I have said before and have heard others independently say that Hugh Ross made them an intellectually filfilled Christian. I still stand by this but would have to ammend it now to say that Hugh Ross + Francis Collins + the ASA made me an intellectually fulfilled Christian. I know many other former RTB apologists who would say the same.

Thanks

John

--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 7:38 AM
> Hi Gordon,
>
>
>
> "On its web site RTB says that it provides reasons
> from science for believing in
> Jesus Christ, thus indicating that they think that they
> have an evangelistic
> mission."
>
>
>
> Sure. Although I'm not sure what scientific finding
> tells us to be a Christian and not a Muslim.
>
>
>
> "This is in contrast to the ID movement, which
> welcomes Moonies and
> self-described agnostics into their upper echelons."
>
>
>
> Yes, the ID movement is a socio-political movement, more
> akin to the pro-life movement or animal rights movement
> (although not as influential). Would there be something
> wrong with having Moonies and self-described agnostics in
> the upper echelons of the pro-life movement?
>
>
>
> Anyway, my point is that there is nothing arbitrary about
> the constraint of remaining agnostic when it comes to the
> identity of the designer in ID. It's the intellectually
> honest thing to do. If someone has a method for
> reverse-engineering the identity of a designer from the
> artifact, I am all ears (been so for years).
>
>
>
>
> - Mike Gene
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "gordon brown"
> <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics &
> Apatheist
>
>
> > On its web site RTB says that it provides reasons from
> science for believing in Jesus Christ, thus indicating that
> they think that they have an evangelistic mission. This is
> in contrast to the ID movement, which welcomes Moonies and
> self-described agnostics into their upper echelons.
> >
> > Gordon Brown (ASA member)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Nucacids wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 08:18:15 2008