Re: TEs vs materialism

Excellent point. I reckon secularists and pluralists are the biggest threat
to Christianity emanating from the West.
That is why I have done much research on Darwin himself especially his
geology in Britain. That gave me an insight into his development. Parallel
with that I do a lot on the historical interaction of science mostly geology
and Evangelicalism from c1700 and here come up frequently with the problems
of the conflict thesis which falsely puts Christians down. One of the worst
examples is SBA Winchester's abominable book on William Smith "The Map that
changed the world" which is sheer bigotry and full of horrendous mistakes.

Yet I see people's faith being wrecked by YEC and object most strongly to
the sheer errors of Phillip Johnson on his attack on Darwinism and of course
his misunderstanding of naturalism, which seems to be the ID basis of faith.
Unfortunately Johnson started fighting with other Christians with his Darwin
on Trial. Unfortunately both YEC and ID have put a rift between Christians
in North America and throughout the world. For that they should be ashamed.

Before all this type of nonsense came up I was happy if someone accepted the
earth to be millions of years old and were not YEC. I couldn't care whether
they accepted evolution or not as I considered that a minor point.

I would much prefer it if I could focus all my energies against secularist
science rather than having to correct fellow Christians who bring our Faith
into disrepute.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
To: "'Ted Davis'" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: TEs vs materialism

> Yes, McGrath's a great example. In fact, I wrote about him in one of my
> science and faith columns for ChristianWeek. If more Christians wanted to
> take on people like Dawkins and fewer wanted to fight with each other,
> we'd
> all be miles ahead. - cheers, Denyse
>
> - 0 -
>
> Scientist debunks atheist's God
>
> By Denyse O'Leary
>
> Have you noticed a double standard in the way science issues that concern
> people of faith are addressed in the public square? Phillip Johnson,
> author
> of The Wedge of Truth (2000), calls this double standard the Two-Platoon
> Strategy, borrowing the term from American football. He uses the
> evolution-intelligent design controversy as his example, but the strategy
> applies to many other issues as well, including human embryonic stem cell
> research.
>
> Here's how it works: When leading evolutionary biologists feel free to say
> what they really believe, they make clear that God is dead, using their
> authority in science to silence any dissent from religious believers.
> That's Platoon One. But when Christians protest that science educators are
> teaching an atheistic worldview, not science as such, the defensive
> platoon
> appears. Then come the "spin-doctored reassurances saying that many
> scientists are religious (in some sense), that science does not claim to
> have proved that God does not exist (but merely that he does not affect
> the
> natural world), and that science and religion are separate realms which
> should never be mixed (unless it is the materialists who are doing the
> mixing)." Having placated the foolish masses, the defensive platoon leaves
> and the offensive platoon goes right back to business attacking the
> theistic
> worldview.
>
> Thanks to the Internet, more and more of the foolish masses can find out
> what is really happening for once, so this trick isn't working so well any
> more. But identifying a problem isn't the same thing as providing an
> answer.
> Fortunately, a just-published book may help us.
>
> Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, is
> a
> world-renowned theologian who also holds a PhD in molecular biophysics. So
> he is well qualified to discuss faith and science. In Dawkins' God: Genes,
> Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Blackwell 2004), he takes aim at fellow
> Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous Darwinist.
> Dawkins
> has long used Darwinian evolution as a platform for promoting atheism.
>
> McGrath's attack is devastating because he aims at the science that
> underlies Dawkins's claims for atheism. McGrath shows that, actually, very
> little science underlies Dawkins's claims.
>
> Here are just a few examples:
>
> - Dawkins's hero is Charles Darwin who, he says, enabled him to feel
> fulfilled as an atheist. But Darwin himself wasn't an atheist. He was an
> agnostic who couldn't quite be an atheist because the evidence didn't
> really
> support it. Dawkins, by contrast, blunders on, heedless of the roar of
> contrary evidence.
>
> - Dawkins insists that faith means belief without evidence. But no
> Christian
> theologian actually teaches that. So most of his attacks are simply
> irrelevant.
>
> - Dawkins claims that religion is bad for you. But the vast majority of
> studies on the subject demonstrate that it is good for you. Dawkins's only
> response is that we must choose between health and truth. But how likely
> is
> it that, in a reality-based universe like ours, the things that make for
> health are untrue?
>
> Interestingly, Proverbs 3 set out, thousands of years ago, the practical
> benefits of following the commands of God: ". they will prolong your life
> many years and bring you prosperity" (v2) ; "This will bring health to
> your
> body and nourishment to your bones." (v8) If that's all false why has it
> been demonstrated to work so consistently?
>
> McGrath's book comes at an interesting time. A world famous British
> philosopher, who has championed atheism for more than fifty years, now
> believes that there is a God . on account of intelligent design theory.
>
> Antony Flew, who became an atheist at 15, used to debate the great
> Christian apologist C.S. Lewis in the 1950s, which shows you how far back
> he
> goes. (Lewis died in 1963.)
>
> So why did Flew change his mind? He says that the investigation of DNA
> "has
> shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are
> needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved."
> Notice, we are talking here about evidence that life forms are designed.
> We
> are not talking about stuff you can know only by faith. What convinced
> Flew
> was evidence from science, not faith.
>
> Didn't get the book you want for Christmas? If you are interested in faith
> and science issues, I would recommend that you try to get hold of Dawkins'
> God. Let's hope Flew has one more book in him too.
>
> Denyse O'Leary is a freelance journalist based in Toronto. Her book By
> Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in
> the
> Universe (Augsburg Fortress, 2004) can be ordered at
> www.designorchance.com.
>
> - 0 -
>
> I briefly responded earlier to Denyse's request for examples of ASA people
> who've openly taken on scientific materialism. I've privately sent her a
> bunch of names that occur to me, without specific titles, etc.
>
> Alister McGrath is not in the ASA, though me might be a member of our
> British equivalent (CIS). He's clearly a TE, and he's very clearly
> responded to Dawkins directly in his latest book, "Dawkins' God: Genes,
> Memes, and the Meaning of Life."
>
> Does this count, Denyse, as the kind of response you are trying to locate
> on
> the landscape?
>
> ted
>
> --
> Read brief excerpts from my book, By Design or by Chance?: The Growing
> Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe (Augsburg Fortress,
> 2004)
> at
>
> http://www.designorchance.com/press.html
>
> Study Guide:
> http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b088sk.htm
>
> Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806651776/qid=1109790930/sr=8
> -1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8617533-8799957?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> My blog:
>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
> (go to other blogs from here)
>
> Denyse O'Leary
> Tel: 416 485-2392
> Fax: 416 485-2392
> oleary@sympatico.ca
> www.designorchance.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Davis [mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:15 PM
> To: asa@lists.calvin.edu; oleary@sympatico.ca
> Subject: TEs vs materialism
>
>
Received on Tue May 24 17:35:48 2005