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

But wasn't the point that accuracy regarding the designer transcends the
inherent limitations of both the written word and man's concepts
embodied in theology, and isn't a personal God anathema in view of the
discussion?
:-) JimA [Friend of ASA]

Kirk Bertsche wrote:

> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gbrown@Colorado.EDU>>
>> To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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
>> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>!
>
>
> =

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 12:50:59 2007