Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

Steven, thanks for this very thoughtful response. Alot to chew on. One
quick (well it's become longer than I intended) side note, which I want to
mention because I've seen it brought up before. Ted and George, I'd
appreciate your thoughts here too, because I've notice you employ this quote
from Pascal as well: *"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." *

This has been attributed to the Pensees, but I can't find it there. George,
I saw an old article of yours that cites #602, but that's not it in my
Penguin Classics version. Searching on the phrase in an online searchable
Pensees didn't turn it up. I'm sure it's there, I just can't find it or its
context.
**
Anyway, if Pascal is really saying God is "hidden" in terms of not being
revealed in nature, this seems to contradict scripture -- e.g. Psalm 19
("The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands.Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display
knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not
heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of
the world") and Romans 1 ("The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by
their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse.").

Pascal himself seems to acknowledge that there is evidence for God in nature
his Letter to Mademoiselle de Roannez, in which he says: "The veil of
nature that covers God has been penetrated by some of the unbelieving, who,
as St. Paul says, have recognized an invisible God in visible nature." (See
http://www.bartleby.com/48/2/11.html)

I wonder, then, if this snippet of the Pensees -- which itself is a bunch of
unfinished snippets -- is being taken out of context?

I've also seen reference to Isaiah 45:15 to support the idea that God is
hidden in nature: "Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior
of Israel."

Yet in context, Isaiah 45:15 refers to God's inscrutable judgments and
intentions for the future, not the the question whether the existence of God
is evident in nature. Isaiah 45:11, for example, says ""This is what the
LORD says— the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to
come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work
of my hands?"

In particular, the context of Isaiah 45 is an explanation of why God's
chosen people were subjected to the Gentile ruler Cyrus -- an explanation
that paradoxically ultimately involves the salvation of the Gentiles.
Thus, Isaiah 45 is not addressing whether the existence of God is revealed
in nature; it is addressing the hiddeness of God's eschatological purposes.
(As J. Alec Moyter notes in his commentary on Isaiah, in reference to verse
15, "how concealed indeed are the purposes of God when the enforced
submission of Israel to the Gentile Cyrus is but a passing veil over the
ultimate truth of Gentile submission to Israel! . . . Whoever the speaker is
in this verse, the Lord has revealed his saviourhood in gathering in
Gentiles; it is their salvation which excites wondering comment.")

Thoughts or comments?

On 10/20/06, Steven M Smith <smsmith@usgs.gov> wrote:
>
> 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 Oct 20 22:07:57 2006