Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

*Poured himself into a design... Sounds almost as scientific as God is
> beyond science. Poof...*

To be clear, this wasn't intended as a defense of ID. It was intended as a
reference to my orthodox Christian belief in "one God, the Father, the
Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen," who,
in the words of the ASA's Statement of Faith, "has endowed it with
contingent order and intelligibility." This God whom Christians have
professed for 2000 years (and who was professed by the Jews long before
that) does not arise out of creation. He is outside, over, and above it.
He is a given; he simply is.

*"You say God created the universe -- well, then, who created God?"* is not
the novel, breakthrough jibe Dawkins wants it to be. It's a threadbare old
canard, and the answer is simply "no one -- He is God." At some point,
reductions have to cease. The same is true for Dawkins' materialsm -- "you
say everything must arise gradually out of something simpler -- well then,
where did that something simpler arise from?" Dawkins needs to go back and
read his Aristotle and Aquinas.

Pim, I don't have time to go on and on about something this obvious. If you
think what Dawkins is doing is merely debunking ID, what can I say? Either
you haven't actually read or listened to Dawkins' hateful diatribes against
religion of any kind, or your anti-ID glasses are so thick that you can only
see through that lense, or something else.

On 3/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If ID wants to argue that it can successfully detect design using ID,
> > then the conclusion should be that the designer was designer or arose
> > under the natural processes of chance and regularity.
> >
> > This is nonsensical. If the designer is God, the designer himself is
beyond
> > science, but the fact that he poured himself into a design might not be.
>
> Poured himself into a design... Sounds almost as scientific as God is
> beyond science. Poof... Based on ID's own arguments, the conclusion
> that God was designed/or evolved naturally seems inevitable. Of
> course, the easy way out is to remove God from the scientific
> equation. Of course, one may still argue that God poured himself into
> a design but that concept once again seems to quickly become without
> much scientific relevance.
>
> >
> > Of course, the best solution to this would be to drop the ID argument
> > > as being scientifically relevant otherwise one may have little choice
> > > but to accept Dawkin's stunning reversal.
> >
> > Dawkins' "stunning reversal" is a moronic schoolboy's trick. He needs
to
> > read some serious theology before he starts opinion about a concept of
God
> > he clearly doesn't understand.
>
> You seem to miss the point. Dawkins is using ID's claims that God is
> somehow scientific and turns it against ID. If the argument is that
> God is somehow beyond science then let's all agree on that. To argue
> that the solution to this problem is to remove God from scientific
> scrutiny then fine.
>
> >
> > And in any event, it's ludicrous to portray what Dawkins is doing as
some
> > sort of noble crusade against ID. He's not interested in undermining
ID, he
> > is viciously attacking religion qua religion -- ID, TE, or whatever.
> > Dawkins is a bigot, plain and simple.
>
> I can surely understand why you may think that he is a bigot but
> Dawkins' position seems in many cases quite reasonable.
> Is his crusade against ID noble? It's surely a fascinating use of ID's
> own arguments. What's the saying again? Hoisted by their own petard
>
>
> >
> > On 3/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So if God is a definition then I'd agree that He is beyond the scope
> > > of science. However, when applying the 'logic' of the ID inference,
> > > one can indeed reach a contradiction. That such a contradiction can be
> > > resolved by arguing that God is outside nature, a first mover does
> > > little to undermine Dawkin's argument.
> > > If ID wants to argue that it can successfully detect design using ID,
> > > then the conclusion should be that the designer was designer or arose
> > > under the natural processes of chance and regularity.
> > >
> > > Remember that according to ID a system of high (specified) complexity
> > > requires a designer.
> > >
> > > Of course, the best solution to this would be to drop the ID argument
> > > as being scientifically relevant otherwise one may have little choice
> > > but to accept Dawkin's stunning reversal.
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > because it turns the ID approach around and it
> > > > is used against ID's premise to show that the designer needs to
either
> > > > have evolved or either it is too improbable. But if it is improbable
> > > > then the designer needs to have been designed.
> > > >
> > > > All of which is of course ridiculous because by definition God is a
> > given, a
> > > > first cause, an unmoved mover, etc. Dawkins' coup de grace is just
a
> > > > metaphysical assertion that complex information must always arise
from
> > > > simpler information. He conceives of God as part of some sort of
> > natural
> > > > system that can't begin with highly complex information, and then he
> > happily
> > > > knocks down that straw man.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, PvM < pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Dawkin's assertion that the question of God is a scientific
question
> > > > > is particularly ironic because it turns the ID approach around
and it
> > > > > is used against ID's premise to show that the designer needs to
either
> > > > > have evolved or either it is too improbable. But if it is
improbable
> > > > > then the designer needs to have been designed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/29/07, Hofmann, Jim < jhofmann@exchange.fullerton.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > I just listened to both these interviews and I heartedly
recommend
> > them
> > > > as well worth the listening time. I think Collins was particularly
> > > > articulate on the issue of what theism or religion broadly construed
> > adds to
> > > > scientific descriptions and explanations of the history of life.
Dawkins
> > > > wonders why anything other than scientific explanation should be
sought
> > > > except for emotional consolatory reasons. Collins quite
appropriately
> > > > responds by citing issues such as life's meaning and purpose as ones
> > that
> > > > are not addressed by science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had to chuckle at Dawkins' assertion that God's existence is a
> > > > scientific question. I wish I had the time and ability to write an
> > imaginary
> > > > dramatic encouter between Aquinas and Dawkins on this issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Hofmann
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Rich Blinne
> > > > > > Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 9:25 AM
> > > > > > To: Ted Davis
> > > > > > Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview
> > program
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fresh Air has a podcast where you can download the Dawkins
interview
> > and
> > > > the Collins interview later today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=7060034
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/29/07, Ted Davis < TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I just learned, Richard Dawkins was interviewed
yesterday
> > on
> > > > the NPR
> > > > > > program, "Fresh Air." This can be downloaded today (I
don't
> > > > know how long
> > > > > > it remains available) at
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today's program, broadcast at 3 pm by many NPR stations,
> > will
> > > > feature
> > > > > > Francis Collins.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ted
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.eduwith
> > > > > > "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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 31 11:11:41 2007