Reflectorites
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:08:11 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>This accommodation works when Cliff can keep his public and private lives
>separated. However tensions arise when Christians (like Dembski) appear
>who have reached a different accommodation between their science and
>their Christian faith, namely rejecting the materialistic-naturalistic
>philosophy underlying modern science in general, and biological science in
>particular.
FJ>That Dembski incorporates his Christian belief in his science is nothing new.
I did not say that "Dembski incorporates his Christian belief in his science".
I said that Dembski rejected "the materialistic-naturalistic philosophy"
underlying science.
FJ>For many scientists its quite easy to accomodate faith and science.
If their "science" is based on "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" and
their faith is based on a Christian theistic philosophy, then I doubt that it is
"quite easy".
Most Christians that I have encountered who try "to accomodate faith and
science" seem under great conflict and this is most evident in the barely
suppressed *rage* they seem to have against those of their Christian
brothers who question "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy".
Jesus said "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and
love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Mt
6:24). Christians who try "to accomodate" their Christian "faith" with their
"materialistic-naturalistic" science are no exception.
FJ>That
>Dembski and others reject a working philosophy that neither admits nor deny
>his Designer seems somewhat unnecessary.
Materialistic philosophy asserts that matter is all there is. That is, there is
no God.
Naturalism asserts that nature is a closed system of cause and effect into
which nothing supernatural, even if it exists, could never influence or
intervene.
So if FJ thinks that "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" neither admits
nor denies a designer, then the most charitable assumption is that he does
not understand what the words mean.
FJ>Especially since they offer no working alternative.
How would FJ ever know? His mind seems closed to even the *possibility*
of *real* design being detected in the natural world.
[...]
>SJ>The tensions get even worse when those Christians (like Dembski), argue
>that there is independent scientific evidence from nature for design and
>hence those scientific positions which claim there is no design, ie.
>Darwinism, are false.
FJ>Steve is still confused about what Darwinism claims and does not claim.
>Perhaps he wants to claim that Darwinists claim that there is no design?
They do in fact. I have quoted from leading Darwinists who say exactly
this. FJ is free to post quotes by leading Darwinists who claim there is
design.
FJ>But
>Steve also quoted that design can incorporate from religion to evolutionary
>mechanisms.
I can't work out what FJ means here.
FJ>So does Darwinism claims that there is no design when design is
>defined as such?
See above. I don't know what FJ's definition above means.
The fact is that Darwinism *does* "claim that there is no design". If FJ
disagrees with them one this he should take it up with the Darwinists.
FJ>Indeed the weakness of ID is that it has reduced the meaning
>of design by including natural forces as the designer.
No it hasn't. See previous posts. Dembski's explanatory filter excludes all
unintelligent "natural forces" which consist of either law and chance.
FJ wants to invent a new category called *intelligent* "natural forces"
which are other than law and chance. He is welcome to try to establish this
new category, but, as I have pointed out, he would destroy sciences like
archaeology, SETI, forensic science and *Darwinism* in the process.
This is because any claimed example of design (in the case of archaeology,
SETI and forensic science) and of non-design (in the case of Darwinism)
would be defeated by the claim that this could have been an instance
*intelligent* "natural forces".
Not only that, but assigning guilt in the law would be difficult, if not
impossible, in cases of circumstantial evidence. In that case a defendant
could claim that he didn't kill his wife with his gun, but it just pointed at
her, released the safety catch and pulled the trigger of its own accord,
because of *intelligent* "natural forces!
FJ>As such I doubt that
>Darwinism claims that there is no such design.
Whether FJ doubts it or not is irrelevant. The fact is that leading Darwinists
all *do* claim that there is no real design, only apparent design.
FJ>Of course this also assumes
>that there is a reliable detector of design, something yet to be shown.
See previous posts.
FJ>Furthermore what problem is there for Chris and other scientists when ID
>cannot exclude natural forces as the designer?
See above.
FJ>Nothing. Other than the obvious question: So what is the value of ID then if
>it cannot exclude and can include anything?
See previous posts.
[...]
>SJ>That is, they should ask themselves whether the fact that they spend
>>their time and energy attacking their fellow Christians who are arguing against
>>anti-Christian philosophies like materialism, naturalism and Darwinism, and
>>defending their atheist/agnostics colleagues who hold those philosophies, is
FJ>not good evidence that they themselves have in fact been taken captive by
>those "hollow and deceptive" philosophies?
Maybe FJ could state what *would* be "good evidence that they
themselves have in fact been taken captive by those "hollow and deceptive"
philosophies"?
FJ>You seem to be still confused about Darwinism.
It is not *me* who is "confused about Darwinism"!
FJ>Darwinism and the underlying
>foundation of science are not anti-Christian
Maybe that is why leading Darwinists like Dawkins (Oxford Professor for
the Public Understanding of Science) describes religious faith as a "virus":
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great
evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
(Morris H.M., "What They Say," BTG No. 123a, Institute for
Creation Research, El Cajon CA, March 1999.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-123a.htm)
FJ>and I believe it is important
>that we Christians do spend our time straightening out our fellow Christians
>who argue against this.
FJ would be better to spend his "time straightening out" his "fellow"
*Darwinists*!
His "fellow Christians" are just taking the Darwinists at their word.
FJ>Perhaps that is the evidence Steve is looking for?
What "evidence" exactly is it that am I supposed to be "is looking for"? I
already own, and have read, most of the books that leading Darwinists
actually write.
Maybe FJ could state what books by leading Darwinists (and IDers for that
matter) that he actually owns and/or has read?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Research in many disciplines over the past 40 years has demonstrated that
the patterns, processes and forces of evolution are far more diverse than
hypothesized by Darwin and the framers of the evolutionary synthesis: ...
Increasing knowledge of the fossil record and the capacity for accurate
geological dating demonstrate that large-scale patterns and rates of
evolution are not comparable with those hypothesized by Darwin on the
basis of extrapolation from modern populations and species." (Carroll R.L.,
"Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 19:08:12 EDT