Re: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs intelligence

John,

I understand from this that you are signing off this list. Perhaps I have misunderstood your position on these matters.  Consider that it takes time to figure out what anyone is really thinking.  It is of some value to throw in counter examples, educators use that all the time to remind students that alternative views exist. However, how one identifies himself/herself with those examples is also important.

When I became a Christian, I was deep in the liberal arts and planning to become a composer: mainly in some sort of a jazz fusion direction.  I realized at that point, having chased after philosophy, that science was something I wanted to understand.  Moreover, because I had become a Christian, and the controversial issues of YEC and so forth were ever present around me, I wanted to know for myself. Science seemed so powerful. It could explain so much. So from that point, I started with zero skills as a scientist, and went through a broad study of most of the important sciences including geology, chemistry, and finally settling on physics where I now work in biophysics.  Yes I was in school for quite some time.  I was also working to support that study, so it took even longer. However, the flip side is that I have lived in a number of worlds and have that general perspective to draw on.

Of course, because I was enthralled with the apparent power of science, I reflect now that part of my obsession to learn science was the desire to have a big club to batter people over the head with "the truth".  It is so much easier to justify what you think when you can paste a big stamp "proved by science" on it.  I confess that maybe there is a perverse "fun" in crushing heads with a "baton", and I though this was that tool for me. What I didn't understand, and at the point of entry couldn't, is that science is not everything.  It seemed to explain many things with a consistent framework, and will probably explain many more things within that framework.  However, an issue like "who is God?" is far bigger than that.  Moreover, there is a theology in all this.  Theology is about the study of God, and so the "who" is very central to how anything is revealed.  Is God one who raps people on the head when they ignore him? (Well, in a way, yes, but I would have been turned into a lump of coal a long time ago if God had my kind of patience.)  So it would seem that God is not one to assert his authority over creation like we love to assert our authority over other people including family, friends, coworkers and even people we don't know. God does not place his (C) and (R) on every product either, as we humans love to assert our own self importance and contributions.  And all of these stamps and assertions are the things we might measure with "science", but they are just not there to the degree we can prove them when it comes to God. 

And this is the core of where I think I largely erred, I thought that I could somehow largely prove them, and forgot that this is a matter that finally comes down to faith.  It is no different than Abraham who hid that Sarah was his wife.  He was afraid, and didn't trust the Lord.  We, some 4k or 5k-something years later have changed not one iota.  We all hunger for that big club. And wouldn't it be so much easier.  But it seems, God will have none of that.

Of course, as a Christian, reading Hugh Ross' book on the astronomy part, it was very appealing.  It is reason to have some faith.  However, even there, there is a perspective.  It is reason to take as a possibility, but not a proof.  Take for example his argument that we live in a universe where we are alone.  That was brought up first when many people were talking like the universe was littered with intelligent life.  Hugh Ross was pointing out that we are very likely alone and that the universe was created for us.  One the other hand, CS Lewis would argue that us being alone was a reason for his atheism.  (It seems the matter of the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe has oscillated greatly over time.) So the fact that I believe in God and am a Christian influence how I interpret the world I live in.  Both of them are looking at that same facts, i.e, the paucity of other intelligent life in the universe and drawing the opposite conclusions.  Lewis would say that it is in spite of what we see that we believe in God. So the framework of mind as seen through the eyes of faith, is as much a matter in seeing evidence of God as it is what we actually see.  The atheist will look at the world and say it proves his faith, just as I, as a Christian, look at the world and say it proves my faith.  True, both cannot be right, but both are speaking from faith.

I sense that both ID and the extremist atheist are both making this same error. They want to prove their _faith_ with the big stamp of science.  Science is impotent on this matter.  The absurdity of the YEC position has not helped the case for the faithful.  Neither has the overblown hype of the ID camp helped. Heaped on top of this was the zealous way some members of the ID camp were always threatening to come out soon with the terrifying battering rams.  After a while, the opposition started saying "we're waiting". It has rendered any attempt to look at the matter, no matter how cautiously, "open season"  for ridicule. (Open season: a legal time for hunting.) But scientism of this extreme in the atheist camp leads to utter meaninglessness for our existence.  We understand that man cannot live by bread alone, but scientism's ultimate conclusion has this kind of insidious destructive element buried inside its sugar coated wrapping.  It becomes irrational to put our trust in these things to give us a reason to live.  The success of science is within the narrow framework of testable arguments and experiments.  Unfortunately if you demand a proof, what we believe in as Christian, and our hope that life has purpose, is untestable. Science at its best could only leave us with something ambiguous. It is the way God is.  We can only speak from faith.      

So if you want that big flashy red baton, you have certainly come to the wrong place.  Many of us have already been there and done that.  Some have a few dents in our skull from messing with that. After years of studying and later working in science, I come around to the simple statement of a parochial preacher, "faith and faith alone". That faith is realizing that you don't know everything, and you cannot prove your position no matter how hard you try, but you recognize that the message spoken by the prophets makes sense, and you understand that Christ suffered on the cross to save us, because without grace, we really have no way to have that faith to begin with. We're all the way back to the hands of Augustine.  But, as seen from the eyes of faith, it also partly reveals just how much greater God is.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne (ASA member)

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: dawsonzhu@aol.com; randyisaac@comcast.net; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:40 am
Subject: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs intelligence

Wayne,

Assuming this is addressed to me, I don’t view evolution as “evil”. In fact, I think I accept all the same science on evolution as you do.

What I don’t accept however is the extremes that I think that many on this list go to to criticize ID and also to embrace the prevailing atheistic view of naturalistic Darwinian evolution.

I have seen responses to some of my posts that label me as an evolution basher or an ID supporter but neither of those are true and both are overly simplistic. I can accept orthodox Darwinian evolution with absolutely no theological hangup whatsoever and just take comfort like Collins that “somehow” God directed it for His purposes. However I don’t think this explanation best fits the data. I don’t base this on any theological argument but on objective secular science. For instance, Gould himself didn’t accept strict Darwinian evolution and we have punk eek today as a result. Gould’s points about the stairstep fossil record predominantly reflecting stasis punctuated with sudden change are very valid in my humble non-scientist opinion and I think this deserves accommodation.  

And I think many on this list strongly oppose the concept of the generic design inference posited by ID and go to great lengths and hermeneutical gymnastics to erase that from the testimony of scripture even though many secular scientists who are themselves witnesses of the scripture’s truth in this matter.  I have managed to extract, albeit under duress, concessions from a few key thought leaders on this list after marathon exchanges a basic affirmation that the fine tuning of the physical universe and the nebulous natural law mechanism that guides evolution represent a token proxy of God’s design in creation, but that has to be heavily caveated to not be too scientific or the DI flavor of design or otherwise they will take it all back.

As a result, I sense a tendency to overreact to ID and discard and discredit many of their general and more basic premises which are still valid and even create a theology for it, and then go to the opposite extreme of agreeing with atheists on their definition of restrictive PN science that is masqueraded as MN. I suggest that neither of these extremes are based on scientific data or are grounded in scripture and I further suggest that those that think they are possibly vulnerable to finding deities of their own making themselves, a charge leveled at those that bring this criticism.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between these two extremes and is not beholden to either of the two ideological stakeholders on offer, ID or atheists, something like a Theistic Punk Eek. Why can’t we as supposedly intellectually honest and objective Christians acknowledge this possibility and avoid this either/or faulty dilemma? Why can’t we give ID a little credit for some of their valid observations (which I have also managed to extract from some under duress) and also admit that some of the atheist’s positions on science are way too naturalistic in light of what the scriptures teach about natural revelation (also extracted under duress)?

Maybe I am just naïve but from all that I have learned from everything I have experienced throughout my entire Christian life, this seems to me to be the most honest and accurate analysis of the situation. Granted this is a layman’s opinion but I think that may give me a little objectivity that might be underrepresented on the list otherwise. However this will be my last parting attempt to address this since I think both sides have said all that can be said productively.

Thanks again to all involved for all the sparring to date. I appreciate your virtual fellowship.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of dawsonzhu@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:56 PM
To: john_walley@yahoo.com; randyisaac@comcast.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

John Walley wrote
<<
Lee Strobel is right. You can’t have it both ways. Either God was involved in which it wasn’t random or if it was random then God couldn’t have been involved.

This is a valid critique of Collins as well. Fuz Rana interviewed Collins on their radio broadcast and asked him that exact question, how he saw God’s involvement in creation if he accepted the totally random processes of evolution? Collins waffled and said he didn’t know.

>>

Some people recognize the value of adaptive systems.  Rather than build one system for each problem, build a single machine that can more or less manage all of the problems it encounters.  I reckon NASA probably spends a lot of time on that since you cannot ask for a rocket every day when a part fails. Such systems are robust, able to survive when crippled. Sometimes, it is amazing how well thought out a well design system is. 

What about the immunity system.  That is a "random" library that your own body uses every time a pathogen enters your system.  To find an antibody, your own system _select_ an amino acid sequence for the variable region of the structure. That in turn, nabs the offending protein, sends your system into red alert, and brings in the bouncers. That is an adaptive system. 

I find it strange that we view immunity as the "good" adaptation yet evolution is always the "evil" one.  

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'Randy Isaac' <randyisaac@comcast.net>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:35 am
Subject: RE: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

Lee Strobel is right. You can’t have it both ways. Either God was involved in which it wasn’t random or if it was random then God couldn’t have been involved.

This is a valid critique of Collins as well. Fuz Rana interviewed Collins on their radio broadcast and asked him that exact question, how he saw God’s involvement in creation if he accepted the totally random processes of evolution? Collins waffled and said he didn’t know.

This is a disingenuous and dishonest critique of ID by TE’s. We all have to accept some level of intelligent design in creation if we affirm God’s role in creation.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:26 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

The November 2007 issue of Christianity Today includes a book review titled "Deconstructing Dawkins" in which author Logan Paul Gage critiques McGrath's book "The Dawkins Delusion." I don't think it's available online yet so let me just type in two paragraphs of the article which I think deserve discussion. My point is not to agree or disagree but to say that this is an articulation of a critical point of difference within our communities that needs to be clearly addressed.

"While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's evolution, surely they must maintain that the process involves intelligence. So the question is: Can an intelligent being use random mutations and natural selection to create? No. This is not a theological problem; it is a logical one. The words random and natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses which organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is intelligent rather than natural.

"Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this process. Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole thing off, but this abandons theism for deism."

This is essentially the same argument that Lee Strobel used on the radio a few weeks ago when he firmly but respectfully rebuked Francis Collins. Evolution is inherently random and without guidance and is therefore mutually exclusive with divine guidance, he said.

Randy

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 7 19:39:38 2007