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

I'm still signed off but you raised an interesting point worthy of comment.

Curiously, RTB has always been on the other side of ID and years ago
publicly called it "not science" and "not testable" and said they were
"dishonest about their motives" etc, and other such unflattering comments.
That really raised a row in the RTB base as well as most of them considered
themselves and RTB firmly in the ID camp. I met Bill Dembski while this
rivalry was going on and we discussed it and he was really taken aback and
visibly shaken by their comments.

RTB's angle was to differentiate themselves from ID by promoting a truly
testable and therefore scientific model that would supposedly be allowed in
the schools. A small oversight of this plan was that it depended on
theological arguments and the bible to prove its testability.

It sort of resonates in the church but I told them years ago this seemed a
little naïve to think that Eugenie Scott and the NCSE would be swayed by
this definition of science. The last book by Dr. Ross was "Creation As
Science" which was along this theme.

Although I think it is a stretch to expect to restore theistic assumptions
back to the definition of science in our secular culture, I do think though
that from within a Christian worldview, a "testable" creation model is a
rational way of approaching the debate and synthesizing all the data, and
now that I think about it, I would probably have to admit that has
subconsciously shaped my view that has come out in this thread.

I guess now that it is somewhat ironic that I am perceived to be defending
ID when the source of my philosophical foundation is opposed to it as Pim is
pointing out here. The distinction is that as opposed to most on this list,
the basic arguments of ID such as the icons, the design inference, anthropic
principle etc, are not opposed by RTB but only ID's claims to it being
science.

That is basically my position as well and the source of my frustration on
this list. I concede now that ID technically isn’t science like RTB rightly
points out, but even though they may not be testable, these observations
that ID contributed still appear to be valid to me.

And lastly, I didn’t call evolution a prevailing atheistic viewpoint. In
fact, on the contrary I told you I could accept evolution, even of the
unqualified Darwinian stripe, which just so happens to comport nicely with
the "prevailing atheistic viewpoint", but that was unsatisfactory to me
because I don't think it is the best interpretation of the data.

Further I contend it not the most honest theological position either, but it
is safe and doesn’t rile up the atheist mafia, so unfortunately that carries
the day in the scientific establishment and trumps honesty.

When we are defending the plausibility of multiverses over the generic
design inference of creation then that is a dead giveaway that we all lost
all scientific and spiritual objectivity and credibility.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:11 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: dawsonzhu@aol.com; randyisaac@comcast.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs
intelligence

Man, speaking of strawmen again, calling Darwinian evolution a
prevailing atheistic view. That and any other science.

Why do Christians criticize ID? Because of its scientific infertility
and its theological flaws of relying on gap arguments. Collins, in his
interview with Faz (RTB) was extremely clear on the fact that there
are no reasons to accept the ID proposal that we should assign
'design' to anything science does not understand only to find out time
after time that we are wrong.

Why do people speak out against ID? Because its proponents seem to
confuse concepts such as methodological and philosophical materialism
and call evolution a 'prevailing atheistic' viewpoint.

On 11/6/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 8 21:28:38 2007