Re: More fusillades in the ID wars

Dick,

As you must know, the "problem of evil" question is a broader
question, and, indeed, a vexing question. It becomes personal for all
of us in varying degrees as we experience "natural" or "moral" evil.
You seem to choose, as many do on this list and elsewhere, to opt for
a universe that operates autonomously of God's control as your
explanation for such evil--God had more important things to do--and
wasn't attending to the details that lead to bad things. (I really
don't think that you can consistently argue that "God just screwed
up".)

You claim that ID, YEC, PC all have this problem because they put God
in the designer/creator seat. Well, as hard as it is to understand in
light of the goodness of God, I really don't think that scripture is
unclear on this--"Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
(Job 2:10) and many other similar passages. Whatever we think about
Satan's activity or the wickedness of free agents, I don't think that
scripture lets us think that these things operate outside of God's
care and design. So you can add my version of TE/EC to those
viewpoints for which you have a grievance. I think you speak quite
prematurely to say that no one has thought about the dark
implications of ID.

As I have stated many times here, the reason that evolution is
compatible with my Christian faith (and others of Reformed
persuasion--like those in Livingstone's *Darwin's Forgotten
Defenders*) is that it is an expression of His creative and
providential will--warts and all.

How can a good God allow or cause some of the things that seem to
happen in the course of evolution? Darwin asked these sorts of
questions too and it led him (in dialogue and disagreement with Asa
Gray) to question the orthodoxy of the day. Of course, I'm not sure I
have a satisfactory answer other than trite-sounding phrases like
"let God be God" or "the mysterious counsels of God". However, I do
think that aspects of God's plans and purposes are beyond my
comprehension--after all, He's God and I'm not. So I rest and trust,
not necessarily with all my questions answered, but with the
assurance that God is in control and is accomplishing His purposes in
the world and in me--and He does this not only as the omnipotent,
all-good, and all-wise Deity, but as my Heavenly Father. Central to
those purposes and His care is Jesus Christ and His incarnation and
suffering. All I can say is that God's marvelous grace and mercy are
made known in His salvation. He has surely turned evil, that in me,
in the world, and in those who wickedly crucified our Lord, to good.

TG

>Jack Syme wrote:
>
>>Dick Fisher wrote:
>>
>>"The editor should have had the good sense to recognize an
>>article that lacks any positive evidence for what it asserts, and should
>>never have run the article in the first place. He is expected to exercise
>>editorial judgment after all. He embarrassed the institution and damaged
>>its credibility. "
>>
>> So only articles that have positive evidence are worth writing?
>>Do you actually have the same criteria for articles that have
>>nothing to do with science/creationism? What evidence do you have
>>that he embarassed the institution and damaged its credibility? Is
>>that just your opinion or do you have something to back it up?
>>
>
>ID is foisted off as a "scientific theory" while it meets no tests,
>and has not a shred of positive evidence, same as YEC, same as PC.
>As such, none of these religiously motivated notions have a place in
>scientific publications. Editors of such publications should know
>that articles they publish must meet at least some measure of
>scientific criteria lest they confuse or lose their readership base.
>PSCF, Zygon and other such journals cross the line, but they have a
>stated religious agenda.
>
>I have no idea whether or not the Smithsonian was embarrassed by the
>article or even the aftermath. There is the potential for harm to
>their reputation which clearly exists if they publish creationist
>literature just as there is if they put up exhibits touting flood
>geology.
>
>But my main grievance against ID is that it asserts that God, or
>some invisible intelligence (and how disingenuous is that) is
>pulling the switches in the progression of life. So when Alzheimers
>entered the world, which requires me to take daily medication by the
>way, He (or he) apparently had something more important to do. Or
>maybe He (or he) just screwed up. It is the dark implications of ID
>that irritates me, and no one bothered to think about that.
>
>>What chance does anyone, anywhere now have of publishing an article
>>about design, even if it is scientfically accurate and rigorous?
>>
>
>What chance is there that design proponents will come up with some
>positive evidence?
>
>Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
>Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>www.genesisproclaimed.org

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801