Rich wrote:
>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.
I absolutely agree that the evidence of design is not to be found in anti-evolutionism. Christian apologetics is entirely stuck in two HUGE ruts. The first and biggest is antievolutionism. The second is the view that the Bible can't say anything except theological things about the world. The ID folk are irrationally anti-evolutionist. If one views the world as a system designed to bring us about, one can see it all the way from the initial conditions of the universe to the way evolution works. We are planned, just not planned in the way that the anti-evolutionist ID folks want to hear about.
>
>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.
There is no proof, but there IS evidence. As to Paley, I like what an author of a book I recently read said. If one finds a watch in the field one certainly has the right to ask who designed the watch making factory! God designed the evolutionary system--the factory which makes us--the watches.
>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.
I know, Rich. You are right. I am probably my own worst enemy in all this. That being said, I do know one thing that I beleive to be a fact. I won't change anyone's opinion in this area of creation/evolution/allegoricalism. I also know that (don't take this as anything other than a statement of fact--I don't believe in telling myself lies anymore since my YEC days) my views will have no impact on this world. That doesn't mean that the need to defend REALITY is the wrong thing to do. And I will do it as long as I am a believer. I think I have told many of my severe struggles with my faith. I see nothing being offered in YEC, ID or the typical TE approach other than an escape from REALITY which serves to keep the Bible true no matter what nonsense it might teach. If that is all Christianity and the doctrine of creation is, there isn't much to it.
>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.
If you want design, you are going to have to fight for it. No one (or very few) here are going to give you much support. And the YECs and ID folk? They are too tied up in scientific nonsense to be of any real, long-term use. Fight for it. Even if we fail to bring design back in, it doesn't mean it is a worthless goal.
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.
Most ASAers will disagree, but these same people never offer any reality to the Bible. God is an add-on-- a useless appendage to a philosophical position which has no objective support(note I didn't say proof because there is no proof).
FRankly, I do think it best that the ASA is ignored unless they change and they won't change anymore than the YECs will change. Change is very very painful. I know. I changed from YEC to TE. The pain still reverberates through my life.
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.
Rich, we absolutely agree here. ID is awful. It will mislead more. Christianity must come to terms with evolution in a way that maintains some form of reality in the creation account or Christianity will go the direction it has in western Europe where only 2% of the people attend church and Islam is on the rise.
> Give the YECs props for their approach -- at least they started in the right place.
Yeah, and they have the guts to stand and defend the Bible, even if it is with blanks. Here, we write plaintive pleading letters to Nature about why we have been misrepresented and we don't really believe in design. We complain that those meanie ID folks stole the design word from us and they aren't playing fair. So we complain to the teacher to please come and fix it. I feel sickened by all this.
As I said, I have run groups responsible for multimillion dollar decisions which must be made at a moments notice. That requires people to take a stand, not waver and not complain when things go bad. I simply don't see that kind of backbone here. (and as I said in an earlier note, I have long since gotten over wanting people to like me--I don't have time to waste on that. Truth is too important.).
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.
Thank you. Unlike many, you have some insight into the real problem of why Western Europe is dropping Christianity like a hot potato. It isn't REAL and it makes people hate each other. I hope the vicars in Europe enjoy their 2%.
Received on Tue May 24 09:20:12 2005