RE: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

John said:
"The problem with ID is that instead of being just pro-design, they went
negative and anti-evolution. "

I think ID is pro-design, and they get there by being
anti-evolutionary... proving by various evidences (flagellum motor and
statistics), that "evolution is impossible." ... therefore, enter
intelligent design, the only other alternative...

________________________________

From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:19 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

Thanks!!! This nails it for me. The problem with ID is that instead of
being just pro-design, they went negative and anti-evolution.

This needs to be fixed and the culture war battle rejoined.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:57 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

I have a feeling the ID movement is fracturing. I think it clearly
started out as "anti-evolution," judged by reading Phillip Johnson's
book. There is no conception of Theistic Evolution with them. I never
heard it from them. They think evolution is atheistic and evil. They
make the argument sound like it is "Creationism vs. Evolution."
However, TE's are also creationists. I think there are recent ID
changes because of Behe. I wonder if Behe will break-away, or ID will
accept theistic evolution as a possibility. Behe confuses me...
sometimes against evolution, sometimes looking like he is for it.

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:31 AM
To: Jon Tandy
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

John said: If Behe is comfortable with the explanation you proposed (as
I suppose he ought to be, as evidenced by his tacit acceptance of some
parts of evolutionary evidence), that God is still God and Creator even
if He created through natural processes, then why the need for the IC/ID
argument at all?

There is a very interesting exchange of correspondence in this month's
First Things (not online yet) concerning a prior First Things article on
evolution by Avery Cardinal Dulles (not online yet either). One of the
letters is by Benjamin Wilker and Jonathan Witt of the DI. There is
also a letter from Stephen Barr. If you have a chance, pick it up on
the newstand. It illustrates some of the subtleties of this debate that
get lost in the heat of the culture wars.

Here is what Wilker and Witt say:

        As [Behe] notes in The Edge of Evolution, "'The assumption that
design unavoidably required 'interference'" is misguided. "'There's no
reason that the extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here
necesarily requires active meddling with nature any more than the
fine-tuning of theistic evolution does.'" He emphasizes that the
univere may have been fine-tuned to such a degree that it "underwent
'its natural development by laws implanted in it.' One simply has to
envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify from
the start not only laws, but much more."

        Those in the first school of Cardinal Dulles' three-part
taxonomy insist that Behe and others who see strong evidence of purpose
in the natural world have simply given up science for theolgy. Hewing
to the core tenet of methodological materialism, these critics insist
that natural scientists must consider only explanations that fit into
the material/mechancial paradigm. Notice that this same criticism can
be leveled against a theistic evolutionist such as geneticist Francis
Collins, who infers design from the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of
physical constants of nature, or the moral law within the human heart.
Methodological materialism rules all such inferences out of court, and
that's a problem. Investigators should be allowed to follow the
evidence.

In other words, at least Behe and the ID advocates represented by Wilker
and Witt insist that the ID argument / inference flows from the evidence
and is excluded only on improper philosophical grounds.

Here is what Stephen Barr says:

        Cardinal Dulles helpfully makes clear that one can be both a
Darwinist in science and an orthodox Christian. I am simply arguing
that one can also be a Darwinist and believe in a considerable amount of
teleology -- final and formal causation -- the irreducibility of spirit
to matter, and the inexplicability of consciousness and subjectivity by
physicalist reductionism. Darwinism is merely a scientific explanation
of how certain structures and behavior seen in the biological world
evolved. As such, it is completely harmless. It is only those who seek
to make more of it who make it obnoxious.

In other words, Barr says that Darwinism doesn't rule out teleology and
that spirit and consciousness are irreducible to materialist
explanations.

It seems to me that the difference between Wilker/Witt as ID-ers and
Barr as a type of TE is quite subtle. Each believes in teleology, and
each believes creation is not fully reducible to material causes. They
apparently disagree on where the inferences are properly drawn.

On Dec 7, 2007 2:05 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

                Jon said: Isn't this what Behe's science/theology leads
to, is a God who is only a part-time, partial creator, who uses
biological processes but creatively intervenes when those processes
aren't sufficient for His purposes?

                 David responded: Again, setting aside the merits of the
IC argument per se, I guess most TE's will agree with this statement,
but it doesn't make much sense to me. God is free to create however He
chooses. If He created entirely through evolution, He is still the
creator; if He created through instantaneous fiat, He is still the
creator; if He created in six 24-hour days, He is still the creator; if
He created through an act of front-loading followed by evolution, He is
still the creator; if He created through evolution punctuated by
intervention, He is still the creator; if He created through any
combination of the above, He is still the creator. None of these
alternatives would make God a "partial" creator.

                This is actually my point though. If Behe is
comfortable with the explanation you proposed (as I suppose he ought to
be, as evidenced by his tacit acceptance of some parts of evolutionary
evidence), that God is still God and Creator even if He created through
natural processes, then why the need for the IC/ID argument at all? Why
the need to prove that there is a scientifically demonstrable point at
which God stepped in and supernaturally created something that was
scientifically/naturally "impossible", if one admits that God is creator
even through gradual "natural" processes? It seems like if the
Discovery Institute fully accepted the view that God is creator despite
His use of natural processes, which best fits the TE view, they could
save themselves a lot of time and trouble trying to find the supposedly
irreducibly complex processes that *prove* God's direct intervention in
creation. If they continue to cling that hope, then why? and does that
indicate the don't fully accept the possibility of God creating through
natural processes?

                Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 17:25:51 2007