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

Interesting points. I would simply point out that it is perfectly
accurate, both biblically and theologically, to use a personal
pronoun to refer to a personal God.

Kirk

On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:25 AM, mlucid@aol.com wrote:

> Then who is the designer to which RTB refers? Jesus? Jesus as the
> Son
> of God is the only "who" to whom humans can accurately attribute
> such a
> pronoun. Oddly enough, when we say "who" about God the Father we
> anthropomorphize God's transcendence in a way that belittles the issue
> of the Designer specifically as well as almost every other issue
> that involves
> the the relationship between science and religion.
>
> The difference between God the transcendent Designer of the
> infinite universe
> and God the Father of the Trinity should be as different in the
> modern mind as
> the Trinity is from Yahweh. We have a greater perspective than
> humans of the
> past had. We need to use that (rational, scientific) perspective
> to elevate by
> default our instinctive presumptions about what gets transcended
> and what is
> doing the transcending. (It ain't God that's the difference here.
> It's us)
>
> God is more than any of us think. It is the limits we decide to
> assign to God that
> we are arguing about, here, when we should be agreeing on our
> collective inability to
> determine such limits. It's like one child arguing that his dad
> can beat up the other child's
> dad when the other child has no father at home. The resulting
> tragically misdirected
> stress is eliminated if we try and lift ourselves up to the
> perspective of the privileged
> child's father and ask ourselves what he would say to the
> fatherless kid.
>
> -Mike (Friend of ASA.)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gordon brown <gbrown@Colorado.EDU>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:57 pm
> Subject: 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
> >
> >
> >
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

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 12:22:00 2007