[asa] Letter to Thinking Christians about a "Letter to Thinking Christians (and other theists")

As observers of this list will know, we have been discussing a post by
Denyse O'Leary, on the Uncommon Descent ID blog, which quoted from another
thread on this list. Here is Ms. O'Leary's post:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/letter-to-thinking-christians-and-other-theists/

I was very upset by Ms. O'Leary's blog post because the thread it referred
to from this list was started by someone with some honest doubts and
questions about the relation of faith and science. Several people on this
list, including myself, tried to respond to that person in ways we thought
might be helpful (and indeed I still hope they were helpful). Hey, we're
all in this exciting but sometimes nerve-wracking boat ride together.

I posted a comment on Uncommon Descent expressing my concern about this
(actually my comment got unintentionally triple-posted because it was
originally stuck in a spam filter). My biggest concern was what I perceived
as a lack of sensitivity to the person who orginally was some thoughtful and
troubling questions of us here on the ASA list. I then followed up on a
couple of other comments relating to Aquinas and secondary causes.

My reward for this was to be summarily banned from Uncommon Descent.

I would be lying if I were to say that I don't care about being banned from
Uncommon Descent. I do care, mostly because I'm an intense and competitive
guy with an overly active sense of fairness. In another sense, I don't
really care -- like the rest of us, I really should spend my time on more
productive things than arguing with people on blogs (or email lists)
anyway. So, yes, I'm ticked -- but I'm not crying in my milk. I've been
kicked out of fancier joints, I guess.

But what I care about most is Truth and the Kingdom of God. I don't claim
any great insight into either except for whatever grace God has given me.
And in my humble estimation, the kind of thing represented by Denyse's
"Letter" and the resulting hoo-ha in the comments thereto advances neither.

I've no desire to step into yet another online culture war spitting match.
Yet, I'd like the record to reflect my requests and thoughts about this to
Ms. Oleary and Bill Dembski. So, I offer below for the record the comments
I offered to them.

In doing this, I also append a Ted Davis-esque disclaimer: *I do not
consent to the quoting or reproduction of these comments in any forum unless
they are reproduced in full. To do otherwise would be dishonest.*
Hopefully that's even scarier coming from a lawyer.

Denyse and Bill,

I would love to have the opportunity to continue commenting on UD, but it
seems that Bill has permanently banned me. Bill, I'd be most grateful if
you'd remove that ban, or at least explain to me why it was made. I was
certainly critical of Denyse's post, but I think my criticism was fair and
justified. Further, I think the point about secondary causes and Aquinas
was a fair one.

I would at least like the opportunity to continue the discussion on
secondary causes, which I think is an important one. Given your own recent
post about "directed evolution," Bill, I'd think you'd agree that the
discussion of secondary causes and Aquinas could be helpful. You've stated
publicly that people who believe in "directed evolution" are ID people. I,
then, am an ID person, for that is what I believe, within the specific
framework of Christian theology as informed by Aquinas and mediated by folks
such as Torrance and McGrath.

Denyse, my biggest problem with your post was that it seemed terribly
insensitive to the person who originally asked a genuine question about
doubt on the ASA list. You apparently didn't read the ASA list carefully
enough, because half of what you attributed to George Murphy came from the
person struggling with doubt, not from George. A number of people on the
ASA list tried to offer helpful comments to this person, including myself,
as my post on UD shows. Whether George's specific comments were good or not
could be debated (personally I very much appreciate George's kenotic
perspective on creation), but you did a grave disservice to everyone
involved by simply yanking out a few lines as you did.

Do you have any problem, Denyse of Bill, with the resources I proposed to
the doubting person? Do they suggest in any way the sort of capitulation to
materialist philosophy or theological softness that you attribute in your
post? Does recommending Angus Menuge's book "Agents Under Fire" in any way
suggest that I have even a tip of my big toe in the materialst's camp?

Denyse, my second biggest problem with your post was that you did absolutely
nothing to help the doubting person while she was on the ASA list. Where
were your recommendations to her? What counsel did you give her? It
strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to cherry pick from a discussion with
a hurting person, to which you didn't even contribute, and then to twist it
into some false accusation about how the Church is going to pot. I have a
major moral problem with that kind of opportunism.

Denyse, you suggested to me that I'm afraid of stating in public that I
believe in a desiger-God; that I'm shying away from ID out of some concern
for my career.

Denyse, I don't know who you think you are to make a statement like that to
me. You don't know me at all. I've been an evangelical Christian for over
30 years; I graduated from an evangelical college; I was a litigation
attorney in a major firm for 13 years, and now I'm a law professor. I have
never hidden my faith; indeed, I've always proclaimed it openly in what I
say, write and do.

You may note that I never use a psuedonym when I write online; that's
because I believe in letting my "yes" be "yes." Visit my blog
sometime (http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog
) and tell me if I seem to be timid about proclaiming my faith in the gospel
to a hostile world. More than that, as a worship leader in a local church,
I spent hundreds of Sundays, one after the other, standing in front of
groups of 800 or more people, mostly strangers, visibly and openly
proclaiming that Jesus, the logos who made us, is Lord. Who are you to
question my faith commitment when you have no idea whatsoever how I have
publicly lived it out?

Trust me when I tell you that I've taken my professional and personal lumps
for being open about my belief in Jesus and in my affirmation that there is
"one God, the the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth." For you to
suggest that I'm somehow afraid of expressing my belief in a designer-God is
unwarranted. If God wills for me to suffer for my faith in Christ, that
ultimately is something I will rejoice in.

Finally, your unwillingness to engage the deeper theological questions
arising from what "evidence" of design means is gravely disappointing. I'm
sure you know -- or maybe you don't know -- that the question of "natural
theology" has been debated for centuries. It is NOT a capitulation to
materialism to suggest that natural theology reveals little or nothing about
the designer to unregenerate minds. I consider myself within the broadly
Reformed tradition; plenty of great minds in that tradition, Barth not the
least, have been leery of natural theology. And it is NOT a capitulation to
materialsm to suggest that God ordinarily works through secondary causes --
this, indeed, is a classical theistic position that ultimately is a *defense
* against atheistic claims that God is the author of evil. Again, read
Aquinas, particularly his Summa Contra Gentiles.

Bill and Denyse, I think the way you are handling your blog is a terrible
shame. We could be having productive and interesting high-level discussions
about things like Aquinas and Barth and the doctrine of creation, in an
atmosphere of mutual respect. Instead, we get nastiness,
misprepresentations, and censoring even of fellow Christians who affirm the
reality of a designer-God!

And let me add this final thought, Bill: I've no illusions about my own
influence in the world. You've never heard of me, and you don't care who I
am, so I'm another buzzing fly to be swatted away. But, I'd humbly suggest
that I'm exactly the kind of person you should want to engage. I'm not one
of the misanthropic blog trollers who often populate blog comments. I have
deep evangelical roots, a fair amount of theological education, and as a law
professor at a very good law school, over time, Lord willing I will have an
opportunity to influence students and to serve as "salt and light" within
the academic legal community. Do you think people like me will have any
interest in supporting your ideas or work when we can't even have a civil
discussion about Aquinas and causation?

For what it's worth,

Sincerely,

David W. Opderbeck
http://www.tgdarkly.com

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 22:44:00 2007