Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical ofEvolution

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:23:49 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:
>
>
> Denyse O'Leary wrote:
>
> > "As she finishes her book on the ID movement, I urge Denyse not to
>
> > fall ill with PJS (Phillip Johnson's Syndrome), a condition of the
>
> > brain, esp in highly intelligent people, that causes them to
> become
> > unable to discern between varieties of TE, such that everything
> > becomes "Darwinism" as PJ defines it. (And how does PJ define it?
>
> > See Charles Hodge.)"
> >
> > Ted, hi!
> >
> > Your concern for my intellectual health is much appreciated.
> > Eventually I will read all the posts; I always try to look at
> yours.
> >
> > I have no difficulty assuming that there are so many varieties of
>
> > theistic evolutionism that I lose the thread after a while.
> However,
> > there IS a thread. TE usually seems to mean that there is no
> evidence
> > for God's intelligence or agency in the world we see. Faith is
> then an
> > exercise in irrational choice.
>
> Denyse, that just isn't right. It's clearly been your consistent
> position, but it's an incorrect and unsubstantiatable assertion. It
>
> seems to be an integral part of your (uncritical) tunnel vision on
> Darwinism as the only form of thought receptive to the principles of
>
> evolution. It's a point that you have consistently seemed to not
> grasp.
> Most TE folks I know who are rejecting the premise of ID are NOT
> rejecting intelligent design. Rather quite the contrary.
> IM(sometimes)NSHO JimA
>
I have to concur with Jim. I note that Luther, who certainly was not
influenced by Darwinism, held that natural law was the mask of God,
hiding the Creator's constant involvement. To illustrate matters
differently, I thank God at every meal for supplying the food. At the
same time I know that "nature," farmers, processors, grocers and others
are involved in what I find before me. If the farmer is devout, I hope he
does not substitute prayer for plowing. But plowing is the same for the
unbeliever. The "natural" explanation is the same for all, whatever
theological/philosophical view has been adopted. The latter is not
something that can be established through the scientific method.

A different illustration of ordering comes to mind. I am told that the
sequence of integers in the decimal value of pi passes all known tests
for randomness. However, there is nothing known that is more rigorously
determined than the value of mathematical constants. Since we cannot
detect ordering when we know it is present, how are we to detect it by
other empirical observations? If I recall correctly, there were
impassioned arguments over a century ago over whether some pieces of
flint that had been dug up were primitive tools. One of the skeptics
brought in a bag of flint nodules, put the bag on the floor and proceeded
to stamp and jump on it. Then he challenged the believers to
differentiate his broken pieces from those they claimed to be tools. Even
knowing something about human purposes does not allow an unambiguous
determination, although more complicated knapping produces artifacts that
are not produced by "nature." But here we know about the physical forces
involved. We do not yet know the restrictions and possibilities of living
things. Could they be "natural" products? Yes. Does this exclude God? Not
if "Nature" merely hides the deity's hand. And _deus absconditus_ is not
a recent coinage. One has to be quite ignorant to insist that God has to
show himself, like the Russian astronauts who said they had not seen God.
Dave
Received on Fri Mar 12 15:02:29 2004