DaveScot weighs in:
³TEıs arenıt loonies. Theyıre spineless appeasers. They know wearing on
their sleeve a belief in a personal living God who can make miracles happen
with a wave of His hand will make them look like superstitious fools among
the ³higher² scientists. National Academy members, the higher scientists,
are 71% positive atheists, 22% agnostics, and just 7% who profess a faith in
God. Plain and simple, TEıs are caving in to pressure from the majority of
the most accomplished scientists. Wimps. If Judas was alive today heıd be a
TE.²
Thanks, Dave.
Actually, taking the ID route at a Christian institution would be the easy
way out. Itıs much harder to be a TE than an IDer in evangelical settings.
n 6/17/08 1:15 PM, "Dennis Venema" <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:
> More gems from the comment thread at UcD:
>
> ³I would have preferred peaceful co-existence with the TEıs. My first choice
> was to agree to disagree‹to seek common ground‹to dialogue in a spirit of
> friendliness and mutual respect.
>
> But it was they who decided to go on the attack, defending their materialist
> atheist friends. It was they gave theological respectability to the atheist
> lie that ID scientists smuggle religion into their science. It was they who
> appeared in a court of law for the sole purpose of institutionalizing that
> lie, even as they swore on a Bible to tell the truth.²
>
> So, TEs ³went on the attack² by defending someone? Doesnıt that imply a prior
> attack by another party? The author seems to think TEs should just stay out of
> their nice anti-science culture war against the ³atheist materialists.²
>
> ³In any case, it is the TEs who have abandoned the Christian world view.
> According to the Bible, God reveals himself in scripture AND in nature. This
> is not some mere exegetical reflection, it is an undeniable declaration of
> fact. To deny it is to take an anti-Christian position. If a design is not
> detectable, then it can hardly be a revelation.²
>
> If design / Godıs revelation is limited to a small number of gaps in natural
> causation, then ID has severely restricted Godıs revelation in nature, and is
> very reluctant to point out exactly what is revelation and what is not. So,
> the flagellum still counts in the ID world (I think). Is that it? Dembski /
> Behe have consistently refused to answer the question of what is designed and
> what isnıt, yet detection of design is apparently necessary for nature to
> count as revelation.
>
> No thanks. TEs view ALL of nature, including the process of evolution as Godıs
> revelation, which is the intent of what Paul is getting at in Romans. IDers
> are forced to say that only a small subset of nature can be viewed as
> revelatory, and that any advance in evolutionary understanding reduces that
> subset.
>
>
>
>
> On 6/17/08 12:58 PM, "Dennis Venema" <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:
>
>> Gee, wonder why Dembski has to resort to quoting old editions of Millerıs
>> textbook?
>>
>> Now Dembski is claiming ³well, they started it!² as if no one has ever heard
>> of the Wedge Document. Culture warfare has been warp and weft of ID since its
>> beginnings. TEs have been responding to ID as a result of its warfare
>> approach. If they werenıt pushing ID as science into schools this would be
>> merely an interesting debate among academics.
>>
>> From the comments on UcD: (Iıd respond there but my comments are always
>> blocked.)
>>
>> ³The problem with *some* theistic evolutionists is that they are two-faced.
>> One the one hand they deny ID - that there is any discernable Divine design
>> or purpose evident in creation (or, at least, in biology). On the other hand,
>> they turn round and say (when amongst Christians or when talking to the media
>> as spokesmen for theo-evo) that they believe that there is a God who is
>> behind creation (ie. they do subscribe to a form of ID).²
>>
>> Not so. Believing that God is behind creation through well-evidenced natural
>> mechanisms = TE. Believing that Godıs activities can be detected
>> scientifically as (undemonstrated) gaps in natural causation = ID. Notice how
>> the author of the comment above believes that to deny ID = to deny God, and
>> also misunderstands that ³purpose² is to be equated with ID (and claims that
>> TEs deny purpose).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/17/08 12:37 PM, "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What does Miller call himself then?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dembski is "sort of" going after TEs yet again:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theoevo-vs-id-hey-who-sta
>>>> rted-this-anyway/
>>>>
>>>> But not really, because at the 99% level he is going after Ken Miller. I
>>>> talked with Miller not long ago. He said (paraphrasing) "Even my friends
>>>> call me a theistic evolutionist, but I am not a theistic evolutionist."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So Dembski is bashing TEs‹by using quotes from Miller‹who by his own words
>>>> is not a TE. It makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Heddle
>>>> Associate Professor of Physics
>>>> Christopher Newport University, &
>>>> The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
>>>>
>>>> http://helives.blogspot.com <http://helives.blogspot.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Right. We all know that the history of "war" in the Church is long,
>>>>> sordid and sad. Sigh.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to name calling here -- yes its different because it's not a major
>>>>> "movement" website and the name-callers weren't public figures. It's also
>>>>> significantly different because when I complained to the ASA leadership,
>>>>> they reprimanded the person and there were both public apologies and
>>>>> private reconciliation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't often agree with Ed Brayton, but he's spot on about this one,
>>>>> unfortunately:
>>>>> http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/dembskis_latest_silliness_1.p
>>>>> hp#more
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> David O. asks:
>>>>>> "What I don't understand is, why respond this way? Why not let a soft
>>>>>> answer turn away wrath?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume that David is referring to the disturbing words of Bill Dembski.
>>>>>> And I think the answer to David's question is very clear. Indeed, I
>>>>>> don't think Dembski left any doubt. If the question is "why not let a
>>>>>> soft answer turn away wrath?" the answer is "because WAR IS THE GOAL."
>>>>>> In fact, Dembski's crazed rage is so unrelated to the actual words to
>>>>>> which he is "responding" that I think it's reasonable to assume that he
>>>>>> wants nothing more than an "ugly war" and is willing to set aside both
>>>>>> rudimentary ethics and basic reason in that wicked pursuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How sad that the regular defenders of ID on this listserv haven't stepped
>>>>>> forward to condemn Dembski's virulent speech. It's not too late, and now
>>>>>> is the time. I'm afraid that Bill Dembski is beyond our help, but those
>>>>>> who might look to the ASA for leadership/guidance on how to discuss
>>>>>> design and natural explanation, in the context of Christian unity and
>>>>>> devotion to the Creator, can be expected to carefully observe our
>>>>>> response to the viciousness of his rhetoric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Christ's sake, let's make it clear that Dembski's behavior is the
>>>>>> antithesis of the ASA's basic values, and that no matter what we might
>>>>>> think of the proposals of the ID movement, we will never countenance such
>>>>>> destructively malicious conduct in the Lord's name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Matheson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. David, I'm sorry that you've been called names here, and if I'd been
>>>>>> here I would have strongly condemned it. But we're in a different galaxy
>>>>>> here, don't you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/15/08 7:33 PM >>>
>>>>>> What I don't understand is, why respond this way? Why not let a soft
>>>>>> answer
>>>>>> turn away wrath? The LAST thing the Church needs is an additional ugly
>>>>>> war
>>>>>> between two "camps" that really have more in common than not at the end
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theistic-evolutionists
>>>>>>> -close-ranks-let-the-bloodletting-begin/
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Quote from Dembski:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and
>>>>>>> > discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin's
>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>> > as God's mode of creation. But I don't think they are immoral or
>>>>>>> > un-Christian for holding their views.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > It seems to me that in earlier parts of his posting he did question or
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>> > close to questioning the faith of ECs. Did not people like Ted, Rich
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> > other try to have a dialogue a few years back on UCD and get booted
>>>>>>> and had
>>>>>>> > their Christianity doubted, or am I becoming senile. Miller may well
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> > gone too far in his attack on ID but Dembski's taring all of us the
>>>>>>> way he
>>>>>>> > does seems very unfair.
>>>>>>> > Could someone please explain how if ID is supposed to be religiously
>>>>>>> > neutral, this post belongs on UcD.
>>>>>>> > Dave W (ASA member)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> David W. Opderbeck
>>>>>> Associate Professor of Law
>>>>>> Seton Hall University Law School
>>>>>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:26:53 -0700
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 17 2008 - 16:27:58 EDT