Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

On May 12, 2008, at 5:19 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:

>
> Now, to the extent this man would try to make some specific argument
> about the complexity of the eye, many of us here could probably
> debunk it and show all sorts of transitional eyes. But regardless,
> it seems to me that this man's moment of intuition was something
> real, and I have little doubt that it was part of the Holy Spirit's
> prompting of him to faith. Whether or not there's an evolutionary
> pathway for eyes, our aesthetic intuition that eyes (and DNA) are
> the marvelous work of a creator has validity at some level -- just
> as we agree with the Psalmist that we are "fearfully and wonderfully
> made" even if we can mostly explain the gradual, natural process of
> fetal development. If we lose that in the zeal to debunk bad ID
> arguments, I think we really lose something important.
>
>

I totally agree with the sentiment. You have been saying that our
interpretation of Scripture needs to be updated and I respond that a
forteriori so does our Natural Theology. You may have missed this but
Alister McGrath is leading up a conference at Oxford this Summer
entitled Beyond Paley. http://www.naturaltheology.org

While I pick on ID it's only because it is the viewpoint that is more
patently busted. But in my opinion all arguments for design based on
complexity are busted. Arguments for design based on order or beauty
are both sounder and more Scriptural (c.v. 1 Cor. 14). Now I am not so
zealous as to destroy the faith of your parent's friend but what
happens -- and it does happen -- when he finds out about how the
mammalian eye evolved? If we don't make progress with our natural
theology your parents' friend's faith could be in jeopardy.

In summary, the irrational opposition to evolution within the ID
community is not only as Ken Miller puts it a "science stopper" it is
also a "Natural Theology stopper". Why did it take two centuries to
update Paley? The IDM has also so perverted the language that when I
said I opposed them you wrongly interpreted that I was against
teleology and was out to strip people of their faith. Nothing could be
further from the truth. In fact, my opposition to ID stems from the
same concern for people's souls that you have.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 13 08:35:33 2008