Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

>Once again I think it is you Glen who are missing the point, and you are so sure that you are right, and so unwilling to listen to
>people's responses that you dont get it.

  I am not surprised by this comment. But I would say this. If what y'all were selling was so sellable,, why are y'all the minority in the US community of Christians and the YECs outnumber you by about 2-1? Your complaint sounds like that of the democratic party who keeps saying, "if we could only get our message out, the voters would vote for us." But they did get their message out and you are getting yours out. It is illogical and y'all fail to do some introspection even when you are losing the battle grandly!

      What makes truth out of being in the majority? I dont think it is our job to make everyone believe what we believe, God chooses who will believe, it is through the Spirit that eyes are opened to the Truth.

>You made the claim that the ASA as a group is rejecting design.

  I have only heard people saying that someone should write a paper about design. Oh boy. Why has the ASA not been advocating design in the market place of ideas long before this? Why is this article such an afterthought? I have on my web page an article on why I believe in design. I have debated it with atheists. But y'all don't think there is anything tangible about what the bible says that you need to defend. If you can't say anything tangible about the design in the unverse (other than that I feel that there is design) you will make no impact whatsoever. The power of the modern paradigm, as I have stated over and over, is that it tells us the TRUTH about what REALLY happened in the TANGIBLE world. We ASAers proudly proclaim that the Bible says nothing tangible or scientific about the tangible world. And that is what makes your message sound so strange. It is like someone saying, "I know that Leprechauns don't exist but wouldn't you want to believe in them anyway? Wouldn't it make you happy to believe in leprechauns?" Why on earth would anyone be won to your position?

      I am listening to you. I think you make some good points. I agree that we should not be shying away from claiming that the Bible makes claims about tangible reality. But the context of this should be within apologetic, historical or religious discussions, not scientific ones.

>But, to be a member you have to believe, among other things, that Christ was resurrected, so by definition, ASA members believe
>in design. This means that you are wrong in your claim that ASA doesnt believe in design.

  Woah. You make a BIG leap there. First off, lots of people, some of whom I know, have been dead and then resurrected. Modern techniques allow this to happen. Some people have had no demonstrable pulse yet suddenly sit up in the mortuary. Exactly how do these resurrection examples prove design? If it doesn't prove design in the cases of less than 3 days resurrection, why would it prove it if you extend the time to 3 days? This is simply illogical.

      I would expect you to know the difference between a resuscitation and a resurrection. A resuscitation is clearly not miraculous. A resurrection is miraculous. I dont really need to explain the difference, I know you know the difference. (And three days has everything to do with it.) And if we as Christians believe in the miracle of the resurrection, which is necessary to be Christian (and to be a member of the ASA) then we also believe that God can intervene supernaturally in the World. If Christ was only resuscitated then Christianity is false. (Or if he was only in a deep coma and appeared dead but really wasnt and woke up three days later, then similary our hope, our faith is meaningless.)

>You are confusing the rejection of the claims, methods, and philosophy of the Intelligent Design movement with rejection of all
>claims of design in the universe.

  No, you are not listening to me. I am rejecting the concept that most people here even believe in design. This organization is writing a letter to divorce itself from design. What does that say to the world? I will tell you if you can't understand it. It says that we are embarassed by being associated with nutcases who believe that God designed the world.

      No that is not at all what we are saying. We are saying that we dont agree with the claims of ID that it is science and should be taught alongside evolution in a scientific class. I dont think anyone here would deny design in the universe, or would not want the world to know that we embrace design, or even that alternative theories like ID shouldnt be taught, just that they are not science and should not be considered as such.

>If you think that George et al, have now rejected design (design with a small d Glen) then please provide some evidence to back
>that claim because I have not heard anyone say that.

  Please provide evidence that they actually act upon their claim that they beleive in design. G.E. Moore was one of my favorite philosophers years ago. He said that if one doubted the existence of the universe, he couldn't live by that creed. Therefore the path forward in philosophy was to look for consistency between action and belief. I don't see any consistency here in that regard.

  Now, as to design with a small d, I am not interested in that. I am interested in finding people who believe in design with a capital D to go with the capital G in God. It is not interesting if evolution (designed with a small d)a butterflies wing. It is really interesting if God Designed (with a capital D) the laws of the unvierse to bring us about. So, you once again have not been listening to me (although you are free with your charge that I don't listen). When you listen, and respond to my point, I will be happier.

      Sorry but I think the burden of proof is on you. It should not be that hard for you to give some evidence to your claim, if it was true. I am sure that someone would have made a comment on the website, or in the email discussions, where they deny the existence of design, or imply that there is no design, if that is what they thought. Since you are making that claim, the burden is on you to show me that evidence. You cant say that there is inconsistency between action and belief, and then jump to the conclusion that they dont believe. You cant prove anything with negative evidence. I have positive evidence that ASA believes in design because they claim to believe the resurrection, and therefore believe in the miraculous.

   
Received on Wed May 25 14:41:53 2005