Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

David,

You ask some great questions. I don't claim to have great answers but I
will give you some of my personal opinions.
 
First, you are correct that the term "YEC or ID arguments" is too broad.
Not every argument used by a YEC or ID theorist is automatically a "YEC or
ID argument." And we probably do throw those labels around too often as
a knee-jerk response. (I'm afraid we all are jerks occasionally.) I
appropriated that term from the title of this thread. Reading through my
previous comments I should qualify this term as "YEC or ID science
arguments." Still a broad term but more to the point. The reason for
this qualification is that when I get to know an 'average' YEC or ID
person, I find that I often agree with a large percentage of their beliefs
and ideas. It is often a small percentage of ideas and beliefs where we
differ and tend to disagree on. In some part of this smaller percentage
there are ideas where my disagreement may not be strong because I have
come to no firm conclusions, my own beliefs are fuzzy, I'm still exploring
the concepts, and/or I am willing to live with uncertainty on the issue.
Often my biggest disagreements with YEC or ID thought concerns how we use
science in our arguments about God. Hence my stated qualification to the
broader term.

From my experience, a typical YEC (and please forgive this broad brush
approach) would say something along these lines. "The Bible is the truth
in all areas. Science is secondary. When science doesn't appear to agree
with the Bible, then scientists are wrong. Science can only reinforce
God?s Revelation." I disagree with this since I like the "Two Book"
approach. (God reveals Himself through his Revelation and his Creation.
Christians need to study both 'books' -- theology=study of God's
Revelation, science=study of God's Creation. Although our study of these
two fields should inform or influence the other, each field has truth
within it that is independent of the other.) Because I do not believe
that the Bible is a book of science and because I do believe we can learn
from science independent of our Biblical interpretation, I find very
little (if any) agreement with YEC science arguments.

My disagreements with most ID theorists are much more subtle. Again I
find much in their ideas that I agree with but generally it is their
approach toward science that gives me pause. From my experience a typical
ID (and this is even a harder creature to define because of the diversity
in the camp) would say something along the following lines. "There is an
intelligent design to the universe and this design can be detected (by
science). Certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent cause and not by an undirected or purposeless
process such as natural selection." I disagree with the first statement
since I believe that science is the wrong tool or instrument for detecting
divine design. Science is too limited and our empirical dataset of
different design types by deities is too sparse for evaluation. I think
that we detect design in the universe by faith. I disagree with the
second statement since I think that 'random process' does not equal 'lack
of direction or purpose.' I don't think we can evaluate final purposes
from a study of random results -- even when purpose is present. For
example, if I simply gave you 1,000 numbers from a random number
generator, I sincerely doubt that you could discover the purpose I had in
mind for creating and using a random number generator (and we use them
frequently).

So with that long and simplistic introduction of my current views, let me
comment on your three questions ... Is an argument for theism / design
based on the anthropic principle, convergent evolution, or the innate
moral sense a "YEC or ID" argument? I would argue that science is the
wrong tool for evaluating "arguments for theism / design" (another broad
category of ideas.) Although I may find evidence of the anthropic
principle, convergent evolution, or the innate moral sense comforting to
my Christian theistic beliefs, I don't see them as concrete proofs for any
YEC or ID arguments. I also fear that many attempts by Christians (be
they YEC, OEC, ID, or TE) to use science as a means to prove or validate
God are an unrecognized acknowledgement of Scientism philosophy. Trying
to use science to prove God (or an unidentified intelligent designer)
makes science the ultimate arbitrator -- i.e. science trumps God.

For some reason known only to God, it appears to me that there is not
enough concrete scientific evidence to either say that God exists or that
God doesn't exist. We must stand solely on faith either way. This is the
purview of theology. Science is not the way to find God. I like the
following two quotes from the philosopher Pascal.

"What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest
presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals Himself.
Everything bears this stamp." -Blaise Pascal, French philosopher and
mathematician (1623-1662); quoted in Science & Theology News article (Oct.
2005)

"There is sufficient light for those who desire to see, and there is
sufficient darkness for those of a contrary disposition." -Blaise Pascal;
Pensees 149

Two final comments: (1) Since I see God equally at work behind all
'natural' and 'supernatural' events I do not like this artificial
distinction. I am not at all familiar with the intricacies of law but I
would ask if the "theistic", the "natural law", or the "legal realism"
views are not artificial distinctions *when* it comes to the hand of God
working behind the scenes? In my field, I see arguments between "natural
causes" and "theistic causes" as artificial distinctions imposed by those
who do not acknowledge God or His providence in the natural world. I can,
with equal enthusiasm, expound on the natural causes that form rocks or
mountains and simultaneously rejoice in the marvelous design and beauty
exhibited by God's intelligent creation of rocks and mountains.

(2) I object to your use of the term Darwinism as apparently equal to
naturalistic materialism. Not all those who accept the now updated and
highly modified theories first elucidated by Charles Darwin (Darwinists)
accept naturalistic materialism. There is a difference. The use of the
term Darwinist has, in my opinion, become a poorly-defined pejorative name
for those who believe differently than the author. As such it becomes as
meaningless as the similar pejorative term 'evolutionary geologist'.

Thanks for your comments David. Hope this makes my views clearer.

Steve
[Insert usual disclaimer about opinions and employer attribution]
_____________
 Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
 Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
 Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
 Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
 -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

"David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote on 10/20/2006 11:05:59 AM:

> Sorry for posting again, but I just read something (while finishing
> a chocolate chip cookie during a well-deserved work break) that
> illustrates some of my concerns here. The following is from
> physicist Stephen Barr's review of Dawkins' new book on the First
> Things site ( http://www.firstthings.com/):
>
> At the foundations of the natural world, we do not find merely slime
> or dust or some dull insensate stuff. We find ideas of sublime
> beauty. Dawkins looks at mind and sees atoms in motion. Physicists
> look at those atoms, and deep below those atoms, and see?or, at
> least, some of them have seen?the products of "sublime reason," "a
> great thought," a Mind.
> In other words, in nature we see a different arrow: It moves from
> Mind to ideas and forms, and from ideas and forms to matter. In the
> beginning was the Logos, St. John tells us, and the Logos was God.
> Is this an example of "YEC or ID" thinking? If not, why not? If
> so, why shouldn't we acknowledge that Dawkins has been right all along?
>
>
>
> On 10/20/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many people on this list see the flaws in YEC and ID arguments
> within their own scientific (or theological) specialty but are
> worried about or even convinced by the YEC or ID arguments from
> fields outside of their expertise.
>
> I think one of the things both Greg and I have been trying to get it
> is what is meant by "YEC or ID" arguments. Take these examples:
>
> Is an argument for theism / design based on the anthropic principle a
> "YEC or ID" argument?
>
> Is an argument for theism / design based on convergent evolution a "YEC
or ID
> " argument?
>
> Is an argument for theism / design based on the innate moral sense a "
> YEC or ID" argument?
>
> In my field (law), I'm convinced that the innate moral sense
> supports a theistic view of the source of law. This "natural law"
> view is rejected by most legal academics, who tend to favor legal
> realism -- the view that law has no inherent moral foundation and is
> only an instrumental tool in a utilitarian context. And legal
> realism is based on a Darwinist-materialist view of human nature.
>
> So, based on my skepticism of YEC and (some) ID arguments in geology
> and biology, should I also reject "design" arguments in law as "YEC
> or ID" arguments? Should I admit that the concept of a moral basis
> for law is an illusion? But if I do that, aren't I succumbing to
> the reductionist scientism that everyone here seems to agree is an
> unwarranted extension of Darwinism? And where does that reduction end?
>
> It seems to me that calling something a "YEC or ID" argument too
> often becomes a rhetorical device without any content. Can't
> someone reject the idea of a 6,000 year old creation, reject a knee-
> jerk response against common descent, and yet remain open to some
> design arguments, without incurring the "YEC or ID" label?
>
>
> On 10/20/06, Steven M Smith <smsmith@usgs.gov > wrote:
[remainder of previous post snipped]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:20:17 -0600