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

Also useful are articles for the conference on Design on 18 March 2006 on
the Christians in science website.www.cis.org.uk.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austerberry, Charles" <cfauster@creighton.edu>
To: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:13 AM
Subject: [asa] RE: Conway Morris-- Boyle Lecture : was YEC and ID arguments

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.
>
>

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 Wed Oct 25 02:40:23 2006