Re: [asa] Theistic Evolutionists Clos e Ranks ‹ Let the Bloodletting Begin!

Dennis,
I think your last paragraph needs some clarification.  Using Torrance's terminology, ID wants an "independent" natural theology to establish evidence for "the Designer".  [So "science" actually is the ultimate decision maker for ID.  They've already bought the naturalism they decry, hook line and sinker.]  Paul's point in Romans is that such an independent natural theology inevitably leads to idolatry  --  which is precisely what ID has arrived at with its Stroboscopic Deism.

Karl    [ASA member]
************************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
To: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com>
Cc: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 2:15 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] Theistic Evolutionists Clos e Ranks ‹ Let the Bloodletting Begin!

More gems from the comment thread at UcD:

“I would have preferred peaceful co-existence with the TE’s. 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.”

So, TEs “went on the attack” by defending someone? Doesn’t 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 “atheist materialists.”

“In 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.”

If design / God’s revelation is limited to a small number of gaps in natural causation, then ID has severely restricted God’s 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 isn’t, 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 God’s 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 Miller’s textbook?

Now Dembski is claiming “well, they started it!” 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 weren’t pushing ID as science into schools this would be merely an interesting debate among academics.

From the comments on UcD: (I’d respond there but my comments are always blocked.)

“The 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).”

Not so. Believing that God is behind creation through well-evidenced natural mechanisms = TE. Believing that God’s 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 “purpose” 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-started-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.