Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:31:47 -0400 "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
writes:
> >>> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> 5/19/2005 2:24:25 PM
> >>>writes:
> Michael,
> You apparently don't understand that this Concordia is Wisconsin
> Synod,
> more extremely YEC than Missouri Synod. Since it is part of their
> doctrinal commitment, it is true, and anyone who does not agree is
> wrong
> and confused. The proof is straightforward. And you have no right
> to
> dispute premises that are beyond dispute. Ipse dixit!
>
> Ted comments:
> Angus Menuge is a bright, competent and honest scholar, trained as
> a
> philosopher (I think) partly or entirely prior to his conversion to
> Christian faith. He's also a YEC, in keeping with his
> denominational
> affiliation.
>
> I also take issue with his view that I'm "confused," but it isn't
> necessarily his YEC position per se that motivates this. Philip
> Johnson has
> long referred to TEs as "mushy accommodationists," I think that's
> what Angus
> means by that comment. IDs (including Angus, he is one) usually
> think of
> TEs as not having thought the issues through carefully enough. In
> their
> opinion, TEs usually go for process theology and/or panentheism;
> they
> believe those views are unacceptable (I agree with them,
> incidentally).
> Most of them *also* however have major problems with open theism-- a
> vital
> part of process theism, but one that can be
> endorsed/accepted/believed
> without also accepting the more radical aspect of process theism
> (IMO),
> namely the denial of divine omnipotence with the radical form of
> divine
> immanence that comes with it. (Namely, making God coeval with the
> world and
> not really the creator in any meaningful sense that I acknowledge.)
>
> So, here's how it works for most IDs:
> If you fully accept evolution, you have to have an open theism or
> else a
> process theism. This surrenders too much of the classical doctrine
> of God.
> Christianity (with Incarnation, resurrection as traditionally
> understood)
> requires the classical doctrine of God. Therefore, TEs who profess
> Christianity are "confused," or "mushy accommodationists."
>
> Now frankly, from talking with many IDs at length about these
> things, I
> believe it is they who are confused about the range of opinion
> within the TE
> camp; and I don't believe that enough of them have thought hard
> enough about
> things like quantum uncertainty and divine providence, an issue
> independent
> of "darwinism" but one that can affect how one views evolution. My
> charge
> to them, is to be more theologically discerning. Their charge to
> us, is to
> be more honest (as they see it) about the shortcomings of the
> standard
> evolutionary model.
>
> Ted
>
My thanks to George and Michael for correcting me on Concordia and
Menuge. I should have checked objectively rather than what I thought I
remembered.

I am amazed that I am a proponent of Open Theism or Process Theology. I
have tried to make it clear that I consider both of them abominations.
But it seems that the entire ID bunch are either ignorant parrots of
errors or committed to lying about those who disagree with them. Michael
has pointed out that YECs misquote or misinterpret scientific
publications. It's evident that ID does the same with philosophical and
theological statements. Johnson is certain that methodological naturalism
is atheistic, which is a lie he will not correct for it would scuttle his
political goals. Indeed, one may extend Clemens' characterization: lies,
damned lies, statistics and ID.
Dave
Received on Fri May 20 00:04:00 2005