Bjoern,
As a philosopher I can comment on some of the points. I've looked at some
of the paleontological evidence, but leave the answer to those in the
field.
Dave
On Mon, 14 May 2001 11:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Bjoern Moeller
<dj_mic20@yahoo.com> writes:
> Today (May 13, 2001) at church (Vineyard Community
> Church, Mundelein, Illinois) I experienced a live
> application of the ID argument for the existence of
> God.
>
> The presentation was brilliantly done by the Youth
> Leader of the Church, a High School math teacher.
> Although I think that the ID argument is an enticing
> and sophisticated philosophical argument I disagree
It sounds sophisticated until you recognize that, for it to work, Johnson
has to declare the identity of methodological naturalism with
philosophical naturalism--a technique with a dogma. But it fits what
"besieged" Christians want to hear, so the can be buttressed in their
belief that they are standing for truth against the damned and duped.
> with some of the scientific presuppositions of the
> argument, and I'm not even sure if it is always good
> philosophy of science.
>
> The central ideas of the talk were the testability of
> a scientific (or any) claim, the lacking fossil
> record, and consequently the flaws in the
> macro-evolutionary parts of the theory of evolution.
> Michael Behe and Michael Denton, among others, were
> quoted as authoritative sources, and the former’s
> mouse-trap analogy was presented.
>
> This experience spurts some comments and questions.
>
> First, is it a fact that the ID movement has succeeded
> in bringing the neoID argument out to the grass roots
> of Evangelical America? How is that, and could ASA
> learn from that?
What I see here is not something ASA wants to get into. If I tell you
what you want to hear, especially if I can make you feel that we stand
alone against the forces of wickedness, you'll join my crusade and a
"true believer" whom nothing can move.
>
> It occurs to me that one essential part of the
> spreading of the argument is the teaching of it at
> seminaries. My wife studies New Testament at Trinity
> Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, and
> here on campus one of the textbooks for the
> Apologetics class (taught by well-trained
> philosophers) is Phil Johnson’s Wedge of Truth. From
> my conversations with the students here it seems that
> the only viable option for connecting science and
> theology is the ID thing. Would that be true for other
> evangelical seminaries as well? Nevertheless, I just
> can’t help to ponder why the ID argument should be the
> best thing to do for an evangelical Christian. Is this
> due to any specific theological assumptions, or is it
> just the alleged advantage the argument gives the
> Christian apologetic?
>
I think there are theological assumptions, like the literalist
interpretation and the insistence that the Scriptures are without any
error. The Reformation stance was that they are the sufficient rule for
faith and practice. As to error, note the cud-chewing rabbits and
hyrax--an ancient mistake included in the dietary laws.
> Second, with regards to the testability of ID and
> science in general I won’t bother the list (as I think
> this was duly debated a few months ago), and so goes
> for Behe and Denton. But I have a problem with the
> fossil record argument. Because I’m not a scientist I
> can’t deal with the issues of the empirical data of
> evolution on standing foot, and my general question is
> therefore: What is the true (or truth approximate)
> status of the fossil record corroborating the claims
> of the theory of evolution? I guess this question
> demands a very long and complex answer, but I hope
> that there is something like a short version of an
> answer.
>
> Most often this argument is posed so that the
> reliability or truth of micro-evolution doesn’t entail
> the reliability or truth of macro-evolution, and while
> the fossil record that verifies the reliability or
> truth of macro-evolution is insufficient, the argument
> goes, macro-evolution simply can’t be reliable or
> true. The argument also incidentally directs attention
> to the transitional forms in the fossil records, or
> the transitional forms that should have been there,
> and lays out in detail how it is nearly impossible for
> a fish-like animal to evolve into a bird-like animal
> (apologize my unscientific terminology).
>
> I hope someone out there has the time and energy to at
> least suggest some answers to my questions.
>
> Bjorn Moller
>
> dj_mic20@yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 16:58:43 EDT