Re: [asa] RE: Conway Morris-- Boyle Lecture : was YEC and ID arguments

Thank you, Charles. Just for the record, the online article in the
Church Times is dated Friday, 20 October 2006.
The Barclay article is good, but the Conway Morris article goes
considerably deeper and is worth chasing up.
Don

Austerberry, Charles wrote:

>I'm glad for the reference.
>
>I should note that the Church Times article was published at the time of the Boyle Lecture. In fact, originally there was a link to the entire text of the lecture on-line, but that link is now inactive, probably because the lecture has been published in Science and Christian Belief and is now available free only to subscribers. However, that same April 2006 issue does have a free sample article on design in nature by Oliver Barclay:
>
>http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/articles/SCB%2018-1%20Barclay.pdf
>
>
>Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor of Biology
>Hixson-Lied Room 438
>Creighton University
>2500 California Plaza
>Omaha, NE 68178
>
>Phone: 402-280-2154
>Fax: 402-280-5595
>
>e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
>
>Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
>http://nrcse.creighton.edu
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Don Nield [mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:54 PM
>To: Austerberry, Charles
>Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
>Subject: Conway Morris-- Boyle Lecture : was YEC and ID arguments
>
>It is interesting that the Church Times has just caught up with this.
>The complete text of this Boyle Lecture, plus commentary by 3 other people, plus response by Conway Morris, was published in Science and Christian Belief, volume 18, part 1, April, 2006. I strongly recommend this paper. (I should add the disclaimer that I am biased -- Conway Morris and I are both members of St John's College, Cambridge.) Don
>
>Austerberry, Charles wrote:
>
>
>
>>In Simon Conway Morris' words:
>>
>>"In my opinion, ID is a false and misleading attraction. There would be little point in reiterating the many objections raised against ID, especially those made by the scientific colleagues, but opponents, of Michael Behe and Bill Dembski, its two principal proponents.
>>
>>Rather, ID has a more interesting failing, a theological failing. Consider a possible analogy, that of Gnosticism. Who knows where this claptrap come from, but it could have been an attempt to reconcile orphic and mithraic mysteries with a new, and, to many in the Ancient World, a very dangerous Christianity.
>>
>>So, too, in our culture, those given over to being worshippers of the machine and the computer model, those admirers of organised efficiency - they would not expect the Creator (that is, the one identified as the engineer of the bacterial flagellar motor, or whatever your favourite case study of ID might be) to be encumbered with the customary cliché of bearing a large white beard, but to be the very model of scientific efficiency, and so don a very large white coat. ID is surely the deist's option, and one that turns its back not only on the richness and beauty of creation, but, as importantly, on its limitless possibilities. It is a theology for control freaks.
>>
>>To question ID might generate a ripple of applause from neo-Darwinians, until they recall that theology is not a fad, a pastime for eccentrics, but central to our enterprise. Such an approach may not only be consistent with evolution, but can also resonate with orthodox Christian theology - the fall, the incarnation and the end times."
>>
>>
>>http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/churchtimes/website/pages.nsf/httppublicpa
>>ges/63693299A537AEDD80256FB2003650C7
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:51:02 -0400
>>From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments
>>
>>- ------=_Part_81_18398794.1161651062427
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>
>>*An argument for theism/design based on convergent evolution is simply
>>a non
>>sequiteur.*
>>
>>So you didn't like Simon Conway Morriss' recent book?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 25 00:56:22 2006