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

RTB is very forthright in saying who the Designer is.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, John Walley wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 9 00:58:15 2007