>>>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. <<<
I don't believe that I can agree that you haven't given up on design. Words have concepts behind them. After abandoning the word 'design', what word are you going to use in its place? There is no suitable replacement for the word 'design'. While I have to go to Tanggu, China today and won't have time to answer Dick Fisher, when he says the word 'design' was 'preempted' he, and you above, are wrong. The word was not preempted, it was ABANDONED by the ASA. Afterall, aren't we all sending a letter to Nature telling how we are not design advocates?
>>>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. <<<<
I simply must respond to this because it goes to the heart of my complaint about the ASA. And it is why I think this is an impotent organization. What is the difference between saying "I beleive in design but the nature of the evidence is not what we call scientific", and the statement: "I believe in Leprechauns but the nature of the evidence is not what we call scientific"? Are they not both on the same epistemological footing? Why is it rational to believe in one but not the other? This is what is totally wrong about the approach here. There is nothing that touches the tangible world here. This is no better than the YECs. The YECs never let the tangible world touch the bible because they have an imaginary science but here, we never let the bible touch the tangible world because we say the Bible has not tangible connection with reality (I am going to head off those who will say that it teaches true theology. We can't know that because there is no evidence, no tangible evidence that such a statement is true). YECs live in a world of imaginary science; too many here live in a world of imaginary design. Both views remove the Bible's relevancy to anything REAL. So why should people pay any attention to a bunch of people who epistemologically believe in Leprechauns, but call those Leprechauns, God.
>>>>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. <<<<
I want to correct this. I didn't call Terry wimpy. Terry is one of the few people who can hear my complaint, understand the deep logic in why removing the Bible from tangible reality is a problem, and he is one of the few who doesn't act as if there is no logical contradiction in removing the Bible from all tangible reality.
To deny design in a tangible fashion is to fall into what Wil Provine fell into. Once he decided that there was no design, he saw no reason to have God. He was logical. He was right. On the other hand, people here want to have their cake and eat it too. We dont' want design, but we want a designer. The world doesn't work like that. No design, no designer. No designer, no god.
Phillip Johnson is right. To too many here, god is an add-on, a useless cosmic plug-and-play. thoughts of Him keep us warm at night but really God is far away and disconnected from the earth and reality. This is why the ASA's position (which I firmly beleive is the majority position here) is so ineffectual in actually changing anyone's mind. At least the ID crowd, wrong as they are, are making people notice them. Someone said once that there was nothing worse than being ignored. The ASA is IGNORED in captial letters.
>>>>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) <<<<
Living together in peace doesn't mean I have to say someone's leprechauns are real. Nor does it mean that I have to affirm their belief is as good as mine. All I have to do is to affirm their RIGHT to believe whatever you want to believe.
>>>>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. <<<
My comment about village idiocy was that most people here don't understand why I insist upon a tangible connection between reality and the bible. They often think this is a hang-over from my YEC days and poor Glenn, he ought to be smarter than that and get over it.(don't think this is a poor me plea, it is just my observation). They claim that the Genesis theology is right, but then because there is no tangible connection between the Sciptural account of creation and the real world, there is no way to know if that statement is true or not.
The YECs deny science so that the bible can't be hurt by the world. Here the game is to deny that the Bible says anything tangible about the world so that the Bible can't touch the world. both views are epistemologically equal in effect. Both remove the bible from reality. The game is to take no risk that the bible might be wrong. By taking no risk, the bible loses all relevancy to the world. Why? Because of this. If god can not communicate one tangible truth about reality, is he God?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 23 2005 - 19:35:04 EDT