RE: [asa] Natural theology

Dawkins is looking to cover up the up evidence of a designer in nature.
I am not looking to find a God in nature, but just keep the playing field
level and not let Dawkins get away with throwing out the evidence against
him.

Agreed this passage is likely talking about the conscience, but not solely
the conscience as he wouldn't need to mention the creation of the world and
things that are made to prove that point. I think he also intends the awe
and majesty of the creation as you suggest as well. This is also consistent
with the heavens declaring His glory. And this is natural revelation to me.

And with all due respect to C.S. Lewis, the universe is very purposeful at
the physical level if the purpose was to support life created in His image
which the Bible says it is. He probably had now way to know it at the time
but the argument is an anachronism now.

If ID tell us "it's worth examining various theological claims to determine
which give plausible accounts of the designer(s) involved in this" then I
think that is sufficient to qualify as natural revelation and I think that
is the meaning of this passage in Romans. I never said it was any more than
this but that is enough.

> You seem to be focusing on fine-tuning types of arguments, whereas popular
> ID has a large component of bad antievolutionary arguments.

Yes you are correct and I apologize if I didn't make that distinction. I do
not endorse any of the evolution bashing of ID, only the general design
inference and the fine tuning arguments. That is what Hoyle and Davies and
even Dawkins acknowledge as well.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:09 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology

> With all due respect this is ridiculous. No one is looking for God in
> science.

Dawkins et al. are (hoping not to find Him); much ID and creation
science does this as well, though for the most part this is probably
inadvertent careless error rather than a deliberate attempt to develop
an extrabiblical theology on the part of the latter two.

> What I am looking for is harmony and concordance between the Bible
> and the natural world. This is no different than Dick looking for harmony
> between anthropology and archaeology and the historical Adam or others
> trying to reconcile the flood story, Joshua's long day etc, etc.

Expecting some form of agreement between the two is quite reasonable,
though expecting the Bible to primarily focus on issues of science is
not. (Not to imply that you are doing so but that some people do,
both those trying to promote the Bible and those trying to reject it.)
 Working out what science and what the Bible actually talk about is a
prerequisite for figuring out where they overlap.

> The scriptures clearly say in Romans that "For the invisible things of him
> from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
> things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
> without excuse". This is not assuming that science is the center or
looking
> for God in science, it is finding God in Nature from the scriptures.

"Nature" and "science" are not in the Romans passage. They may form a
component of what Paul had in mind regarding the sources of evidence
that were available, but more likely aspects not amenable to
scientific analysis such as the conscience, the wonder we can have at
creation, etc. are prominent in his thought. In particular, the
argument continues on to discuss how badly people behave, suggesting
that the conscience is especially in view, and the similar wording in
2:14-16 also supports this. Also, it's highly unlikely that Paul had
in mind the complexities of biochemistry or astrophysics that were
entirely unknown at the time.

> And in case you think this is my finding a deity of my own making, how do
> you explain Rees, Hoyle and Davies coming to the same conclusion?

I do not claim it is unreasonable to look at the universe and say "It
looks designed to me", but this tells us nothing useful about God.
However, I do not see a way to scientifically measure that impression,
nor do I see any clear argument against those like C. S. Lewis who
think it doesn't look very purposeful at a physical level.

>Further, it could be argued that when we attempt to divorce ourselves from
the scriptures' claim of His invisible things from the creation being
clearly seen, as many secularists testify too, then perhaps we are guilty of
finding our own self-made deity such as supposed evidence to repudiate ID.<

I do not think you mean to suggest that every ID claim is infallible.
If we take the 9th commandment seriously, we need to be very careful
to examine claims as to their merit rather than merely whether they
are what we want to hear. It is probably better to be overcautious
with claims that sound good. All evidence cited against ID or for it
must be carefully examined.

More importantly, the place to find out about God is through
Scripture, and in particular in Christ. The above statement seems to
equate ID with a proper deity-probably not your intent, but a frequent
problem with ID statements. At best, ID would tell us "it's worth
examining various theological claims to determine which give plausible
accounts of the designer(s) involved in this." However, so many ID
claims are not in fact scientifically accurate.

The definition of ID is probably a difficulty here as well. You seem
to be focusing on fine-tuning types of arguments, whereas popular ID
has a large component of bad antievolutionary arguments. Furthermore,
there are different possible claims. If I say I object to ID, I could
mean any of the following (possibly more than one):
I think that the current ID movement makes a lot of bad scientific
arguments.
I think that the currrent ID movement is theologically ill-founded.
I think that the search for physical things not explainable by
ordinary physical laws is unlikely to be fruitful (not likely to find
anything and/or not to do particular good if it does).
I think that one absolutely should not look for any physical things
not explainable by ordinary physical laws.
I think there is no design in the universe, not even by God creating
and directing ordinary physical laws.

Popular advocacy of ID tends to equate any objection to ID with one of
the latter two claims. I would agree with the first three, reject the
fifth, and emphasize the third point while not going as far as the
fourth on that question.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.