Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

Gregory,

That you are not interested in "truth in a mechanistic sense" explains
much of the difficulty you have engaging many on this list. Among
physical and life scientists, "truth in a mechanistic sense" is the
yardstick by which we evaluate truth claims in our day-to-day work.
It would be very difficult to be a successful physical or life
scientist without it. And those of us who are in this category
participate in ASA and/or this list in large part because we grapple
with how these truth claims map, if you will, onto the global Truth of
Christianity. I concede that "how" and "why" are a rather simplistic
way of approaching this epistemological divide, but thinking in such
terms sharpens the differences between ID and TE thinking on the
subject.

Both ID and TE proponents hold that the mechanistic "how" is certainly
lesser and does not fully explain "why", and both accept the "why" as
true -- I don't doubt that, though I think ID contradicts itself on
this point. TEs go to some lengths to describe the mapping (and
sometimes they engage in process musings or in pan-evolutional
theories of reality that cannot be fully supported), but they do not
expect to fully explain something so transcendental. They are guided
by the notion that the stratified truth of the "how" must be embedded
in the "why", _because_ the "why" is incontestably true. Portions of
the "how" may be as value-free as the Taylor series in mathematics or
as value-laden as sociobiology, but it cannot be ignored.
(Personally, I prefer to think of biological evolution as a technique
for producing diversity of life that acts upon initial conditions,
much as calculus can be brought to bear on an equation. Looking for
the mathematician in the action of the derivative is looking in the
wrong place.)

ID proponents, by contrast, in my opinion are trying to prove too
much. They seem to be arguing from the "how" as causal, as a premise
for the "why", based on their vision of how reality is stratified.
They claim to believe the "why" but do not seem to be satisfied that
it is true in any epistemological sense. And they compound this
confusion by denying pieces of the "how" to fit their vision. The big
tent of the IDM demonstrates how many different false paths this could
take, depending on which portions of "how" one might accept and which
must be replaced. I don't consider their diversity on this point to
be a strength.

As to your question about heresy: I doubt that ID should be considered
heresy, but it is certainly in error and detracts from the cross.
Proponents could use a re-read of Colossians. Sadly, strongholds of
ID are generally not so charitable to TE. Consider the Biola
Doctrinal Statement's comments on creation, to which all in the Biola
community are expected to adhere:

"The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct
miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of
life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans
cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to the intelligent
exercise of power. A proper
understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature
must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and
chance.

Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the
Bible should maintain at least the following; (a) God providentially
directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the
above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially
created Adam and Eve
(Adam's body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature
immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God
never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a
common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."

TEs could accept most of the first paragraph but are foundered on the
dogmatic "therefore". Apparently holding to TE or some formulations
of ID (e.g. Behe) is a serious enough transgression of "doctrine" to
exclude certain Christians from fellowship at Biola. Is this
warranted in your opinion?

Chris

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 15 12:03:21 2008