Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>

Mike
said:

“One is that you can't put God's will into a scientific
context by attributing to Him simple human attributes just to make it easier
for you to understand how He could affect His will scientifically.”

But didn’t Jesus do that all the time in His parables? 

You bet he did, brother Bernie.  But Jesus had the chops to do it, didn't he?   I'm saying we need to think twice when were doing it, especially when it affects Biblical interpretation. 

The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed… farmer
sowing seed… finding a pearl of great price… woman lost a coin and searched the
house for it… etc.  Again, an example or illustration would help to illustrate
your point.  What is a specific example of someone doing something that you
think they shouldn’t be doing?

Oh, I think it would be inappropriate for someone to say that God actually physically intervenes in human evolution by performing a specific modification of a genome in a way that could not otherwise arbitrarily occur, the results of which we would recognize as enhancing some special ability in human that involves our own concept of how we imagine we are created in the image of God. 

Such a pat "explanation" of our creation both falsely elevates our understanding of God and dumbs down God's design to humanly comprehensible behaviors.  It's one thing to know that God created man, it's completely another matter to know just how God went, goes or will go about it. 

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

…Bernie

From:
asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of mlucid@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007
7:56 PM

To: Dehler, Bernie

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] Origins:
Francis Collins and ID

From: Dehler, Bernie
<bernie.dehler@intel.com>

Mike said:

“You know, it's just so weird to me that some people can't believe in Creation
unless God dumbs Himself down and interferes in His Own Process in the exact
same way that some idiot human would do it if they were God. “

Mike, from your post, I almost get the idea that you are
saying it is unknowable, so don’t bother trying to figure it out.  Maybe
what would help is if you give a specific example or illustration… I’m not sure
I’m getting your point.

I'm
betting you're not alone in that regard.

I was making two points:

One is that you can't put God's will into a scientific context by attributing
to Him simple human attributes just to make it easier for you to understand how
He could affect His will scientifically.

The second point I was making was that, conversely, we cannot eliminate the
will of God from the functioning of the real world by restricting God to the
parameters of our scientific understanding.

If you would like to examine either of these points I think it would be easier
for me to defend them than the original rant I posted.  I feel a little
more composed now. 

-Mike (Friend of ASA) 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
On Behalf Of mlucid@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007
1:42 PM

To: pvm.pandas@gmail.com

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] Origins:
Francis Collins and ID

You know, it's just so weird to me that some people can't
believe in Creation unless God dumbs Himself down and interferes in His Own
Process in the exact same way that some idiot human would do it if they were
God.  But, God didn't just set it all in motion and leave, EITHER! 
God is immanent in the total, instant to instant animation of every
infinitesimal bit of the unknowably vast sum of Creation.  Creation IS God
and IT is ONGOING now and forever, transcending any human ability to even trivially
conceive its scope and purpose no matter how much we think we might know about
it.  You think DNA is the engine of evolution?  In a thousand years
they'll be talking about evolution in a way that will make our current
understanding of natural selection seem like Copernican crystal spheres. 
Bet on it.

God doesn't need to interfere in His own Creation to confirm the primacy of our
faith, NOR did He "set it all in motion" and then vacate in order to
confirm the primacy of our reason.  Jesus!  I hate to rant, but I
just don't get it.  How hard can it be?  God is both immanent and
transcendent.  What we think we know is extremely valuable but extremely
limited leaving  our clear and instinctive faith in the Source of all
Purpose to forever make up the difference.  Survival is to reason as
evolution is to God.  You can't just work one independent of the
other.  You can't think your way to faith any more than you can believe
away the facts on the ground.  Get used to it. 

The simple answer is gone forever because it never
existed.  You can't properly understand what you know without
intuiting what you don't.  Doing that takes the elevation of instinct,
intuition and faith to the position of equal partner to reason.   Faith is
not just about God, it's about a thousand parameters of the unknown as it
infuses every aspect of human life.  It's about taking on the enormous
responsibility of finding out everything you can about what is known and
placing that into the proper context of what is ostensibly true as it lies
forever arrayed beyond that knowledge.  Get used to it. 

(Sorry again about the rant. I'm having a crushingly frustrating week.)

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>

To: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:02 am

Subject: Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

On Dec 3, 2007 11:25 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

>

> " What do you see as a problem for evolution here?"

>

> The problem is seeing how a mindless nature can create something so complex

> as an eye.  The eye is just one example.  As I said, I work at Intel in CPU

> design, and I see how much work it takes to make an advanced CPU.  There is

Is there any similarity between CPU's and complex systems like the

eye? As I pointed out, despite some people's inability to grasp how

evolution can have resulted in an eye, it seems that science indeed

has shown how intermediates exist.

> no way it could be done without pushing every brain cell that we have.

> However, life itself is so much more complex (the eye, DNA, etc.).  So on

> one hand I see the evidence of evolution in the genome, on the other hand I

> can't comprehend how nature can do this without an intelligent guiding hand.

> Is there something unscientific in thinking that God guided evolution?  Is

> the most reasonable conclusion that God guided evolution?  Did God directly

> manipulate DNA as a programmer writes a software program?

Of course, we can always invoke the guiding hand of God but to replace

our ignorance with an appeal to God runs the risk of a gap argument.

Is it necessary that God guided evolution? Is it sufficient to set in

motion evolution? That may mostly be an issue of faith. Personally, I

see nothing wrong with accepting that God set it all in motion a long

time ago. What does it mean for God to 'guide evolution'? How do we

limit God to a mechanism that can be studied by science? Should we?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

size=2
width="100%" align=center>

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

 size=2
width="100%" align=center>

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 5 16:16:51 2007