Re: Dembski on the backlash against ID

At 04:38 PM 14/04/2004 -0500, Paul A. Nelson wrote:
(see my reply below Paul's posting:

>Bill Dembski just posted a commentary raising
>issues of relevance to this list. In particular, I
>wonder if ASA list members might want to
>comment on the following:
>
>"I want to make one last point about attacks against
>intelligent design that appeal to pathos. Normally,
>when intelligent design is attacked, the attackers are
>in positions of power and authority, and proponents
>of intelligent design are the underdogs. That’Äôs not
>always the case, however. The world of evangelical
>Christianity, for instance, seems to prefer intelligent
>design over theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists,
>therefore, feel increasingly beleaguered among
>evangelical Christians. Thus, at a meeting of evangelical
>scientists a few years back (the American Scientific
>Affiliation meeting at Westmont, College in the summer
>of 1997), an interesting reversal occurred. Phillip
>Johnson had been speaking, and Keith Miller, a theistic
>evolutionist (who recently edited Perspectives on an
>Evolving Creation), challenged him during the
>question-and-answer period. For several minutes,
>Miller read from notes and, in bullet-point fashion,
>listed the faults that he found in Johnson’Äôs program.
>There was no way, in the allotted time, for Johnson to
>respond adequately to Miller’Äôs many objections.
>Thus, after Miller finished, Johnson simply remarked
>that he and Miller saw things differently. At this, Miller
>burst into tears and ran out of the auditorium."
>
>"To Johnson’Äôs supporters, Miller’Äôs tears amounted to
>a histrionic display not worthy of reasoned discourse
>in an academic setting. Yet that misses the point -- the
>appeal of tears is not to logos but to pathos. Moved by
>his tears, several members in the audience rallied around
>Miller to console him. Further, they cast Johnson as a
>villain. The lesson for us here is that when appealing to
>the undecided middle, don’Äôt allow our opponents to cast
>themselves as underdogs or intelligent design proponents
>as villains. I see a dynamic increasingly at work among
>theistic evolutionists, whose science, let us always bear
>in mind, is no different from that of a Richard Dawkins
>or a Stephen Jay Gould. Accordingly, they cast themselves
>as the kind face of religion, and they characterize intelligent
>design as theologically naive and misguided. Theistic
>evolutionists have now become marvelously adept at
>rationalizing not only how their religious faith makes
>sense in light of evolution but also how evolution enhances
>their religious faith. Let’Äôs not play this game. The issue
>for us is not how evolution relates to religious faith but
>whether evolution, as currently understood by science,
>is true. If, as we argue, it is not true, then exploring its
>religious ramifications constitutes a vain exercise."
>
>The complete article is here:
>
>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.04.Backlash.htm
>
>
>Paul A. Nelson
>Discovery Institute
>www.discovery.org/csc

I did not read the article yet, so I just react to Paul's posting. I am
also very emotional and can fully understand Keith Miller's reaction when
he did not get a reasoned reply. It has happened to me as well, and I do
not like thinking back to that. I, too, have objections to "Intelligent
Design", even if it would be to the title only. Personally I think
Christians should not have the audacity to say that God was intelligent
when He "designed" the universe. Who are we to say that God is
intelligent in what He is doing?
We should just accept what He does, and that means in this sinful world
that we do not understand God's ways.
Thus far I have not seen a reasonable answer to what people who defend what
many call Theistic Evolution.
 From all sides all the "old" are arguments are recycled, and we don't get
anywhere. As God is in charge and evolution is scientifically shown, we
know that God does it. And as God has always been willing and wanting to
talk to His people, He talked and talks to people of different ages and
different societies in a language which these different people would
understand. So God did not talk to people which lived 6000 years ago in a
language, explaining scientific facts which they could not possibly
understand. I do not think that God does not speak the Truth if He speaks
to me in a language used in past centuries, nor do I think that God speaks
lies to peoples if He uses a language which they understand in a world
which is much "smaller" than the world we think we know. After all they
did not study at any universities yet, and did not have the means of
transportation we have.
AND, I do think that God created the earth, though I "think" as well that
God did it in such a way that He speaks to us in His creation. His
reasoned talking in the Bible to peoples of ages ago was in a language they
understood, while God still kept His creation here on earth going. We do
not know what will come. God has His "hands" on the button, so that no
matter who thinks that he is in charge will not unleash the holocaust any
time before God wills it.
God's talking in creation does not contradict God's talking in the Bible,
since the Bible does have another purpose than teaching 21st century
Christians about the physical situations 6000 and more years ago, just like
Jesuis' parables did not point to people He knew, but were lessons to be
learned by those who wanted to follow Him.
Another example: more than once it has been pointed out on this forum that
the numbers in the beginning of the Bible are not to be used as if they had
the same meaning as the numbers we use in our daily living. What they mean
in reality we do (at least I) do not know. It was discussed a number of
years ago.

Jan de Koning,
who believes that the Bible is the true Word of God when it was told to the
people than living, and the true Word of God now, even when we do not know
what everything means. We are not "gods" but fallible human beings,
created beings.
Received on Thu Apr 22 16:30:43 2004