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

DF: Intervening to inhibit Alzheimers disease, or Tay Sachs, or Sickle Cell Anemia, or Huntingtons disease, or Downs Syndrome, or Cerebral Palsy, or Muscular Dystrophy, or HIV wouldn't be "purposeful" enough? Would that be your argument? Or would you argue that it was retribution for sin? In which case you would have to explain why disease effects every advanced organism, even ones that don't sin against God.

DW: Maybe the purposes you think God should have aren't the ones he actually has. Why should you presume?

DF: And your non-biblical examples are ...?

DW: Don't need any. I don't know how God has done his creating, but (1) I perceive God as being intimately involved in his world and (2) my life-long experiences of the world give me no confidence that it can do a lot of constructive creating on its own, at least, not when it comes to living organisms and their interactions. In other words, apart from the Bible, just gut feelings. I'm working on an interventionist creation scenario that is consistent with God and the data (to the best of my knowledge), and someday I may present it here for criticism. But of course it's based to a considerable degree on speculation, so the only chance it would have of acceptance is if it strikes enough people as more plausible than the alternatives.

Just as people have always needed myths of origins even if absurd, it would help to have plausible scenarios of creation even if speculative. They would provide a basis against which to compare ongoing experience. In fact, Howard Van Till's fully robust world is one such speculative scenario that some find plausible, just not I.

DF: The Big Bang is an excellent example of God causing an event which would not have happened without Him. But you cheapen His true miracle when you follow that up by saying it wasn't good enough on its own. The creation of the universe and the creation of living replicators are God's miracles that are hard to refute. And the Bible says God created (bara in the Hebrew) these things. Now you want to add some unsubstantiated miracles. The Big Bang is an excellent example of God causing an event which would not have happened without Him. But you cheapen His true miracle when you follow that up by saying it wasn't good enough on its own. The creation of the universe and the creation of living replicators are God's miracles that are hard to refute. And the Bible says God created (bara in the Hebrew) these things. Now you want to add some unsubstantiated miracles. That weakens your position.

DW: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that God's creation is deficient if it is unable to go from beginning to end without any intervention. That's presumptuous in spades.

"That weakens your position." Don't follow. What position?

DF: And this is where biblical examples differ dramatically. All the biblical miracles were performed out in the open to reveal God's hand and to authenticate the credentials of someone special - Christ being the most notable example. If you wish to argue for clandestine miracles, you are on your own. The Bible won't help you, and there is no evidence from nature.

DW: Thousands (millions?) of Christians not portrayed in the Bible have testified of direct interventions of God in their lives, including me. Are you saying we're all deluded?

On the basis of many biblical statements I assert that if a Christian has not had God's intervention in his life, he's not truly Christian.

DF: We have solid evidence that evolution at the cellular level is non directed. Babies are born every day with defects so severe they cannot survive. Some survive, but never live productive lives. Explain to those parents why their children weren't important enough that God bothers to assure their well being in the womb.

DW: Once again you're assuming that God should have the same priorities that you would have if you were God. I've heard this kind of argument a lot on this forum, but IMO it's absolutely merit-free. However, it's easy for those with human emotions to understand the motive. The fact is, however, if death is built in, as I believe it is, then defects are of necessity also built in. The defects should be no cause for pause unless the world were death-free. The real problem, then, is why death. But I don't see that as a problem. It's just the world we live in, the kind of world that God wanted.

DF: ...When we express unsubstantiated beliefs, it undercuts all the science we do which is required to adhere to strict rules. What you are saying is that rules don't matter. We just bend them if it suits our purpose such as advancing our religion.

DW: Religion and science play in different ballparks. If the substantiation for religion were the same kind of thing as substantiation in science, it would not be religion and would have little power in human lives. Christianity is faith-based. The evidence for it would not stand up in any scientific court. It is also experience based, but the kind of experience is spiritual and not amenable to scientific measurement. Christianity operates top-down: an authority speaks, and we believe. Science acts bottom up: no idea has merit unless the gritty details of the world are consistent with it. Only the superficial things of religion are amenable to scientific treatment. The heart of it never will be.

As for speculation, science is full of it and in fact requires it in order to advance. Philosophically speaking, the idea that God has never intervened in his creation since the Big Bang is fully as speculative as the idea that he has intervened. In fact, if you honor the witness of millions of Christians, it's a far less substantiated idea.

Don
 

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer<mailto:dickfischer@earthlink.net>
  To: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical of Evolution

  Don wrote:

    Dick Fischer wrote:
     
    "Opening the door to interventionism, which is the "heart" of ID, is more like the "heart attack" of science....

    "Does God's intervention stop at life processes, or does it persist in all physical processes?"
     
    Your criticisms might apply if God's interventions were totally arbitrary, but not if they were purposeful. I favor interventionism, partly because that's what the Bible witnesses of with respect to human history.

  Intervening to inhibit Alzheimers disease, or Tay Sachs, or Sickle Cell Anemia, or Huntingtons disease, or Downs Syndrome, or Cerebral Palsy, or Muscular Dystrophy, or HIV wouldn't be "purposeful" enough? Would that be your argument? Or would you argue that it was retribution for sin? In which case you would have to explain why disease effects every advanced organism, even ones that don't sin against God.

    But the interventions wouldn't be arbitrary in any case. God has intervened in a special way when there's been a need for it.

  And your non-biblical examples are ...?

    It's easy for me to believe there have been needs for it now and then ever since the Big Bang, as I don't believe the universe is quite robust enough to have made us on its own.

  The Big Bang is an excellent example of God causing an event which would not have happened without Him. But you cheapen His true miracle when you follow that up by saying it wasn't good enough on its own. The creation of the universe and the creation of living replicators are God's miracles that are hard to refute. And the Bible says God created (bara in the Hebrew) these things. Now you want to add some unsubstantiated miracles. That weakens your position.
   

    People who insist that God has never intervened in a special way honor philosophical elegance more than truth.

  "Truth" is elusive. Let's just say, "facts." And a fact is something we can support with data and evidence. Genetic drift is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Environmental impact is a pet hypothesis of mine that has a little something going for it. And sporadic divine intervention in life processes has remained undetected.

  And this is where biblical examples differ dramatically. All the biblical miracles were performed out in the open to reveal God's hand and to authenticate the credentials of someone special - Christ being the most notable example.

  If you wish to argue for clandestine miracles, you are on your own. The Bible won't help you, and there is no evidence from nature.

    Now that you raise the issue, scientific data do not establish that God is not intervening arbitrarily in our world as we speak.

  We have solid evidence that evolution at the cellular level is non directed. Babies are born every day with defects so severe they cannot survive. Some survive, but never live productive lives. Explain to those parents why their children weren't important enough that God bothers to assure their well being in the womb.

    In any large set of measurements there are always wild points. One could argue that some of the wild points are valid data. I.e., the observer just happened to measure when God was intervening.

  And a specific example of that would be ...?

    So for any isolated measurement you still have to append that "God permitting." Scientific theories explain only averages.

  Where did you hear that myth?
   

    That said, I suspect that, unless intelligent humans are involved in the interventions and are led by God's Spirit to see them as interventions, we are never going to be able to distinguish a special intervention from an improbable natural occurrence. So IMO ID has a chance of ultimate success that's nonzero but just barely. Even if ID "succeeds," many still will not believe.

  I believe that Christianity is an evidencery religion. We can substantiate our beliefs with historical and archaeological evidence, and the personal testimony of faithful believers who are living witnesses. When we try to advance a belief that is totally unsubstantiated, as ID is, we denigrate our religion to the same level as any other belief that has nothing of substance, like Islam or Hinduism, for example.

  Further, when we express unsubstantiated beliefs, it undercuts all the science we do which is required to adhere to strict rules. What you are saying is that rules don't matter. We just bend them if it suits our purpose such as advancing our religion.
   

    Is the search for ID wasted effort?

  It is counter productive, effort expended in a wrong direction. Better that we testify as to what we know and can substantiate. Don't speculate, don't invent, and live within the rules of data and evidence - the stuff of science. That's effort that could bear fruit.

  Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
  www.genesisproclaimed.org

<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
Received on Mon Mar 15 03:26:22 2004