Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

On 5/23/05, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
> The day we Christians give up on design, we fall into what my good friend,
> Wil Provine fell into. Without design, there is little reason to belive in
> any form of theism. This is why Provine left the faith. He personally told
> me that. When he realized that this was a world without design, he could
> find no reason to keep God in it. Thus Wil became an atheist. I for one,
> think Wil is right. No design, no designer; no designer, no God. You all
> seem to want to deny design (in any tangible form) but then deny the logical
> conclusion therein. This is, was and will forever be my biggest frustration
> with the ASA. In my book there is not much more logic here than in the YEC
> movement. You all say the Bible is true even while saying that it states
> nothing about reality. Sorry, George, I simply don't believe you when you
> say that you really think it means something real. If it doesn't say
> something real about tangible reality it might as well be talking about
> leprechauns. And you always fail to say exactly what it is that the Bible
> says about tangible reality which can be trusted. (You always talk about its
> theology being right, but you can't possibly know that without taking the
> tautological, fideist position--which is: My theology is right because it is
> the right theology; it is the right theology because the Bible teaches it. I
> believe the Bible's theology).
>

At least for some of us we haven't given up on design. One of the problems
with the ID movement is the precision of the language is lost. This time it
is coming from the right. Most of the mushiness has come from the left, (e.g.
redefining gospel, mission, etc.). This mushiness is extremely dangerous. I
think you have a valid point that modern Evangelicalism is squishy and for
some it seems to be a matter of pride. The problem with this squishiness is
friends like yours get lost.

Now for what we do believe. We believe that there is evidence for design but
the nature of the evidence is not what we call scientific. Just because we
hold to this does not mean we do not believe in intelligent design. But, ID
has not allowed this excluded middle. Personally, I believe that you can
prove an intelligent designer philosophically. Terry Gray disagrees with me.
For Terry, either a) my philosophical proofs are not valid or b) they are
not advisable from apologetics or c) both. Now I could adopt your argument,
Glenn, and accuse Terry of being wimpy and in effect denying God's very
existence because he does not share my view with respect to theistic proofs.
That's patent nonsense. The Swiss Theologian, Karl Barth, refered to the
mild-manner Cornelius Van Til as a "man-eater". No wimpiness here.

Francis Terretin wrote an Elenctic Theology. Elenctics was where you
simultaneously affirm and deny positions. ID does not allow our affirmation.
We (all) affirm intelligent design. We (some) deny the proofs presented by
the Discovery Institute. We (some) deny philophical proofs for design. We
(all) should live together in peace. (Ps. 133)

On a personal note, I do not consider you a village idiot. I do care when
you express your dismay and your very legitimate concern about the souls of
your friends. We accepted this when the point of your critique was YEC and
we should also do so when it is the ASA itself. My disagreement with you
should not imply that your concerns are not valid. Please do not leave us
because we need your perspective.
Received on Mon May 23 11:29:27 2005