Re: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20

On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:44 AM, John Walley wrote:

>
> > I have tried to propose a synthesis between ID and TE on the
> Uncommon Descent blog and got myself banned for it.
> I feel your pain. I have been trying to propose a synthesis between
> ID and TE on this list with about the same results.
>
> Seriously though, I think that is exactly what is missing from TE
> and if anyone ever wants it to be taken seriously, I think this
> needs to be remedied. For instance, in spite of all the faults of
> RTB, Dr. Ross at least has the testosterone to put a model out there
> and lets people shoot it down, which all sides including TE partake
> of, and that is more than I think TE can say for itself. Even after
> being on this list for a couple of years, it is still quite common
> to find regular contributors on total different wavelengths in their
> basic beliefs and assumptions like we have seen today. There is
> almost no meaningful consensus on this list that would allow a
> newcomer to understand conclusively what TE really is. From my
> experience, It is only a loose collection of emotional reactions and
> strong opinions on what TE isn’t. It is tempting to draw a parallel
> between TE and ID and the two political parties we have in America
> today

Not quite the right analogy. The two political parties are YEC and TE
and ID tries (unsuccessfully) to be a big tent between them. When ID
-- and specifically Philip Johnson -- tried to create a big tent he
went to his right rather than his left. Because of this ID loses court
cases like Dover because from the outside no distinction is seen
between ID and YEC. If ID had the courage of Hugh Ross -- and Ross has
noted the price he's paid for being a vocal OEC -- people could see a
distinction. When Johnson is pressed on issues such as the age of the
Earth he deliberately mumbles. I do see the issue you have seen
regarding the hostility this choice made by ID has caused between us.
Nevertheless, those of us on the TE side need to be responsible for
our own respective hostility. However, every time some of us try to
extend an olive branch it is rejected.

> .
>
> I am not familiar with what ASA officially has published on this if
> anything but I do think it would be worthwhile for someone to draft
> at least a skeletal model of HOW TE believes their faith integrates
> with science rather than the cop-out that Collins offers by saying
> he doesn’t know but he knows it was God. How does this differ from
> YEC?

The ASA is officially neutral between ID and TE and the upcoming
president is one of the "founding fathers" of ID. If you want to see
how we see science and faith integrates read our statement of faith on
our website (www.asa3.org). One thing that Randy Isaac noted in his
review of RATE in the June PSCF is that prevaricating on the age of
the Earth is outside the bounds of scientific integrity of the ASA.

> Is their a hallway that constrains the staggering drunk of evolution
> towards forward progress of complexity or not?

There may be but one thing that ID gets wrong is that life does not
get more "complex" with time. The genome size grows and shrinks as
time progresses. If you look at evolution prior to humanity you would
not be able to predict its existence because there is a noticeable
"jump" -- not in complexity -- but in something more intangible. What
the YEC get right is there something to what the Bible says concerning
humanity being created in the image of God and evolution in no way
explains it. Since this is what the Bible refers to as a soul created
in the image of God and is immaterial, it is beyond the ken of science.

> If so, does this constitute some valid form of a weak ID argument or
> not?

As far as I can tell, Francis Collins thinks so. I don't. I believe
Ross' cosmological fine tuning argument is a stronger apologetic. I
believe the best we can do is to neutralize evolution as a negative
argument against Christianity. I don't believe we can create a
positive pro-evolution apologetic. RtB obviously disagrees but in my
opinion the more we discuss evolution the bigger the hole we dig. I
discuss it here because it is an in-house debate but I rarely discuss
evolution with unbelievers except in the context of noting that my
belief that evolution and Christianity do not contradict each other.

> Is their evidence to suppose that life began abiogenetically or not?

The evidence for a naturalistic abiogenesis is weak. But, as Francis
Collins has noted even if we do find such a theory it does not undo
Christianity.

> Was Adam historical or not?

There is massive disagreement here. As I noted off-list with someone
else, I believe if you do have an a-historical Adam, the entire Gospel
unravels.

>
> These are very basic questions and are what people that seeking
> Christ and are disillusioned with YEC and ID are asking. This all
> needs to be hammered out into some document that at least lets
> someone know how TE deals with these questions. Hiding behind a
> doctrine that says there are no answers to these questions and you
> simply cannot know is worthless.

I agree and I hope the above helps here. One of the purposes of the
ASA is to deal with precisely with this kind of disillusionment and we
need to do a better job here. If you do want to see more details on
what is behind the TE views a better source is Perspectives on Science
and Christian Faith rather than this list because many here are not
members of the ASA. Even so, because the ASA is neutral to these views
even this should not be considered "official" but rather the personal
opinions of the respective authors.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 23 13:03:23 2007