Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

David wrote:

> 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.").

Although we can say "the evidence of God being plain to see",
it is important to keep in mind that this still requires the
eyes of faith. There are times we don't want to hear something
(and other times we want to believe something), and there is
nothing that anyone can say to persuade us otherwise.

Also the scripture doesn't say that we'll be whomped over the
head with a truncheon if we don't agree. I don't understand
how it is that one person can see it and another cannot, and
no words seem to help. Yet if even words cannot reach a soul,
then how much less would arguments from science (a mere subset
of any such words).

This is mostly where I have come to differ with the ID position.
I think we cannot prove God with science, nor should we ever
have thought we could. When I was a musician and became
attracted to science, it was for this very purpose that I am
now criticizing. So if anyone has sinned here, let me be the
first to confess it. I was dazzled by the flashing lights
and the loud noises, and science appeared so powerful. So
sociologists and law professors are not alone in conflating
scientism with science. Science is powerful and its limits
deceptive.

So the objection I have is not so much that ID folk express
a teleology or design argument, rather, it is that they think that science
can prove their arguments. They're still rock stuck in the
positivist-scientism
pit.

So we have live with weaker arguments. By the same token, it is not like
scientism has the high ground. Even if one can prove that such a view is
consistent (where I'm not completely sure one can), that would be all one
can do, and it does not mean that it is correct. We come back to the
starting point where we must look to the world through the eyes of faith.

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 21 01:34:00 2006