Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

On 5/23/05, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>

Well, I haven't abandoned the word design (or purpose or teleology for that
matter). The letter to Nature stated that there is a difference of opinion
concerning the evidence pointing to design. There is evidence of design, but
in my opinion what is proffered by ID is not it. I suspect the feeling is
mutual. That doesn't make us on different teams, however.

>>>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.
>

Tangible and scientific are not co-terminus. When Job accused God, God
responded to him by noting the limitations of human knowledge concerning
Creation. The expectation that the nature of design is such that science
easily tells us design is to fall into Job's error. That's ID's problem when
they see an easy proof that is what they go after. I don't see the easy
proof available. BUT that is far different from saying there is no proof.
Much of what God has done is not visible to us. Science tells us that design
is possible but it is too limited to totally infer the whole picture. This
is where Paley had problems: the watch in the heather tells you the
watchmaker might have designed it. You cannot be sure unless the watchmaker
told you. This is where we need Scripture. If anything I am attacking
science's and not Scripture's relevancy to anything real.

>>>>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.
>

The reason I brought up Terry is because I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with
him. I bring up our disagreement over apologetics in that a difference in
means does not imply a difference in goals. Terry's admonition that this is
an inter nos debate is well taken. You will recall that I backed you up when
others were questioning why it was so important to have a tangible Bible.
The Bible must intersect with reality and it cannot be empty metaphor. I
don't disagree with you at all on this.

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.
>

I want my design back. I want to make OTHER arguments for design without my
integrity being challenged. I happen to believe the classical teleological
arguments are far better than the current round. Others, like Terry, may
believe that none of our arguments are worth anything. It is to go too far
to say that any of the three groups are not pro-design. We are debating the
relative merits of the different arguments for design but not the concept of
design itself.

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.
>

If that is true, God help us (not the being ignored part but the idolatrous
attitude about God). God is both transcendent and immanent. Any theology
that denies either does not have the right to the name Christian. If you are
right, it is indeed better that the ASA is ignored.

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.
>

I understand why you are doing it and I commend you to continue. You are
right there must be an intersection. My (limited) point is ID's point of
intersection is not the right one. In fact, it doesn't intersect with the
Scriptural account and that is where it is most weak. The Bible has ALL of
creation speaking of the Creator. Scripture teaches us the parts that we can
describe scientifically are no more or no less designed than those that we
cannot because it is all designed. By limiting the observation to the
easy-to-prove points the God of ID is Aristotle's god and not the God of the
Bible. ID chose the wrong starting point: science rather than Scripture.
Give the YECs props for their approach -- at least they started in the right
place.

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?
>

Amen and amen.
Received on Mon May 23 22:20:02 2005