Re: [asa] Letter to thinking Christians (and other theists)

Well, if I weren't banned on UD, I'd say this: how does the theology of the
cross deny humans a supernatural component? After all, as I understand it,
the theology of the cross is all about the incarnation -- God becoming man
and enterning into the suffering of all creation. All that stuff about the
"logos" in John 1 -- seems to me it doesn't get any more "supernatural" than
that.

And I'd also, respectfully, suggest this: if you've never heard of a
theology of the cross, why do you think you can criticize it? If you want
to disagree with George and the long theological tradition he draws from, at
least read up on it and do so intelligently. (So what are you really
concerned about, Denyse? Does George's position draw too much from
existential theology? Do you take a strong neo-Thomist view of natural law
and natural reason instead? Did you see Reno's discussion of Balthasar in
First Things this month -- what do you think, within contemporary Catholic
theology, was Balthasar on the right track, or Rahner? Do yoiu think
Barth's critique of natural law and natural theology is unfair? How does
all this relate to Augustine's understanding of the noetic effects of sin?
What of the clear move away from Pelagianism in John Paul II's *Fides et
Ratio*?)

BTW, I wonder if Denyse would care to bash this comment as well: "*So let
me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS
NON-DIRECTED.. . . Just because the word "evolution" is used doesn't mean
that homage is being paid to Darwin. "Directed evolution" properly falls
under ID." *
**
Who made this frightful capitulation to neo-Darwinist atheistic
materialism? Bill Dembski.
(http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-directed-evolution-darwinian/)

So if I believe God enters into the suffering of creation and directs all of
it, including evolution, to the telos of redemption through the cross, am I
a proto-atheist wearing a religious costume, as Denyse would have it, or am
I in the ID camp, as Bill Dembski says?

On 4/16/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While Denyse may not answer to the group, she has updated her posting
>
> <quote>Note: A reader has kindly advised that in the first paragraph
> above, the quoted author (George Murphy) is quoting someone else. I
> didn't notice an attribution. My focus, however, is the readiness with
> which the fans of Christian Darwinism flirt with dispensing with a
> supernatural component in the human being. I am afraid that I have
> never heard of an orthodox theology of the cross (an interest of
> Murphy's) that denies humans a supernatural component. That is,
> however, a pillar of orthodox Darwinism. I think that what Murphy, his
> quotee, and many on the ASA list from which this sample was taken
> clearly demonstrate is the slow rot of non-materialist understanding
> of life that any long and close embrace of Darwinism brings about.
> Mind you, I expect them to want to discuss just about anything
> else.</quote>
>
> How can accepting the facts of science lead to a slow rot I wonder?
> Are Denyse's fears the reason why she seems ill informed on the topic
> of Darwinism and other evolutionary sciences?
> It would help understand a lot although I find it discouraging that
> people are so often driven from science to pseudoscience based on
> issues of faith or lack thereof. We see it with ID and global warming
> deniers, who seem to be reluctant to accept the facts of science. Is
> it out of fear of slipping away from their faith?
> Personally, I find my faith strengthened by the findings of science.
>
> On 4/16/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My sympathies with you David.
> >
> > As I have said before on this list, it is this kind of behaviour why I
> > cannot take ID or YEC seriously. (Would James McHaffy care to comment on
> > Dembksi and O'Leary's behaviour?)
> >
> > How they can reconcile this kind of misrepresentation with Christian
> honesty
> > I do not know. Further there is no need to rubbish others as did Nelson
> over
> > my late friend Peacocke and also Keith Miller.
> >
> > All this results in ID not only having zilch intellectual worth but no
> moral
> > worth either.
> >
> > I am tempted to ask if Dembski and acolytes are not agents for Dawkins
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Opderbeck
> > To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> > Cc: pvm.pandas@gmail.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Letter to thinking Christians (and other theists)
> >
> >
> > Well, finally the other shoe dropped -- Bill Dembski removed me from the
> UD
> > discussion. I invite you all to take a look at what I wrote and
> determine
> > for yourselves whether it was warranted. It's really too bad --I'd like
> to
> > have added something to the discussion of secondary causes, which, in
> > typical fashion, is getting botched by Bill's and Denyse's sycophantic
> > commentators.
> >
> > Shame on you, Bill, for letting this travesty of a post be published and
> for
> > removing me as a result of a comment based on what actually transpired
> here
> > on the ASA list and on a theological point about Aquinas. You are
> losing
> > whatever battle it is you're fighting, and this kind of thing is why.
> >
> >
> > On 4/15/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Within Denyse O'Leary's screed,
> > >
> > >
> > > What you need to ask is a much simpler
> > > and entirely determinable question: Is this stuff compatible with your
> > > spiritual tradition? If not, recognize the situation for what it is:
> > > undermining from within
> > >
> > > Hmmm, "spiritual tradition".... as in what, which
> > > whose, where?
> > >
> > > I don't think Calvin dwells much on what a soul is
> > > does he? He usually seemed to have the good sense
> > > to stay out of meddling in matters well outside his
> > > understanding of law, scripture and theology. It seems
> > > to me, we might do well to follow such examples.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the one lesson we should understand by now is that
> > > we don't know what the soul is and therefore, we are currently at
> > > a loss on how to mesh it together with our scientific investigation
> > > of the mind. Better that we learn to accept that we don't know how
> > > to put it together, than to shout vociferously empty claims of such
> > > knowledge and take the high and foolhardy road to thorough
> > > destruction.
> > >
> > > 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 Mon Apr 16 11:51:15 2007