Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

So, because the common elitist view is perverse, you want us to join them
in their confused usage? The parallel argument is, because the popular
evangelical view is perversely adopting the same claims, we want to join
them. I take the opposite tack, that I must do my best to correct the
lies that come from such usage. I will not knowingly join the spiral
twist.

You accuse TEs of denying teleology. Bull. TEs are concerned enough about
clarity to recognize that teleology is not a scientific term. They
recognize that the hand of God is not evident in empirical studies.
Luther recognized it in noting that natural laws are the masks of God,
what we see when God is at work. It is vital to note that science does
not tell us why there are natural laws, it merely describes the ones it
observes using specific techniques. To understand the why gets us into
theology and philosophy, with the Christian properly saying that the
truth is derived from revelation, not from nature.
Dave

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:54:13 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
Dave Siemens said: You are confusing scientism-materialism with
Darwinism-evolution.

Roger said: I sure wish I could see your and Arago's POV, but for the
love of God, I
surely don't. What are you trying to get at anyway?

Dave and Roger, I understand some of your frustration with me and Greg.
Like you, neither of us (I think Greg would agree with me here -- correct
if I'm wrong) think the Dawkins-ites are right in conflating common
descent with scientism-materialism; and neither of us (again, Greg,
correct if I'm wrong) are suggesting YECism is acceptable. All of us
agree: common descent doesn't in itself have to imply
scientism-materialism, and clearly false positions such as YECism should
be rejected.

But Greg and I, working in social sciences, see that people in our
disciplines overwhelmingly do conflate common descent with
scientism-materialism. And not only that, as we study the history and
sociology of science, we see that people in your disciplines -- at least
in biology -- do so as well. And further, we see that in the culture at
large, conflating common descent with scientisim-materialism is a huge,
huge problem; I at least would daresay it's a bigger threat to faith than
YECism. This is why I mentioned the Wired article. Turn also to the
"science" column in the Wall Street Journal (today's essentially
positivist column on "why false beliefs persist in the face of contrary
evidence" is a good example), the New York Times, etc., and you will see
the same thing: faith in anything beyond "science" is derided as
irrational, and Darwinism is Exhibit A in the supposed triumph of
"science" over "faith."

So what I'm a bit frustrated by, and where I have trouble understanding
your perspective, is that you don't seem to understand how big this
problem of scientism-materialism-positivism is becoming in our culture.
On this list, we can cheerfully affirm that Darwinism doesn't necessarily
imply materialism, and technically, that's true. But out in the "real"
world, Darwinism is exactly used to imply materialism.

And this leads, for me at least, to the problem of teleology and design
arguments. For the love of God, I don't understand what I sense is a
deep hostility to any sort of teleology or design argument in biology
among some (not all) in the TE camp. I do understand caution, since
there are some plainly flawed teleology / design arguments, and many of
those are employed by YECs. But when I read someone like Francis Collins
with the one hand employ teleology / design arguments in cosmology and
with the other blithely dismiss the very same sorts of arguments in
biology, I say "huh?" It seems to me that the brick wall against any
design / teleology arguments in biology lends aid and comfort to those
who say Darwinism does imply scientism-materialsm.

On 10/19/06, Roger G. Olson <rogero@saintjoe.edu> wrote:
>
> > *And you "overspeak" yourself all the time in your insistence upon
> > applying
> > the generic term "evolution" from the specific meanings of cosmic and
> > chemical and biological evolutions (all very different of course to
anyone
> > who's studied science) to social and cultural phenomena.*
> >
> > But this is exactly how materialists apply the term, from Dawkins to
> > Lewontin to Dennett to Wilson. In our somewhat insular discussions
on
> > this
> > list, we like to cabin "evolution" as something very specific
involving
> > biological common descent. But "true" Darwinists apply "evolution"
to
> > mind,
> > spirit and culture as well, whether in the form of sociobiology or
> > memetics. *We who believe there is such a thing as the image of God
in
> > man
> > are just as ridiculous to true Darwinists as YECs (and for some,
ID's) are
> > to us.* Greg is right about this.
>
> I really don't care what Dawkins or other ontological naturalists
believe
> "evolution" means. Why would you want to use their false hyperbolic
> meanings of this general term to conflate the very different academic
> areas of cosmic, chemical, biological, and cultural evolutions?
Dawkins
> and his ideological lot are as ignorant of reality as Henry Morris,
Duane
> Gish, and Jon Sarfati.
>
> > BTW, there's a fascinating and frightening article in the current
issue of
> > Wired on the "new atheism" that reinforces, I think, Greg's point.
It's
> > not
> > online yet, but pick it up on the news stand. All of us who believe
> > there
> > is something beyond mere matter are held in utter contempt by the
> > intellectual vanguard of contemporary Darwinism, whether we accept
common
> > descent or not. We should spend more energy on thoughtful, unified
> > responses to the fallacies of materialism than we do on sniping at
other
> > people of faith who question evolution, however defined.
> >
>
>
> I'm all for a thoughtful unified attack on materialism (ontological
> naturalism?), but not at the expense of throwing out *clear* empirical
> evidence of deep time in the rock and cosmic records and common descent
of
> the biosphere. How does the latter compromise our Christian faith in
any
> way and support the cynics POV?
>
> I sure wish I could see your and Arago's POV, but for the love of God,
I
> surely don't. What are you trying to get at anyway?
>
> R
>
>
> --
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

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 05:42:04 2006