Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

I can't understand why being able to detect design in creation would be in
any way theologically unorthodox. Of course, we have a loaded term here in
this words "detect" and "design."

Psalm 19 tells us unequivocally that God's "glory" and the "work of His
hands" are manifestly evident in creation -- creation "declares" and
"proclaims" them, and "there is no speech or language where there voice is
not heard." Romans 1:20 tells us that God's "eternal power and divine
nature" have always been "clearly seen" in nature, though sinful humans
ignore this evidence. The tradition has always acknowledged this -- see the
recently released book on the Fathers' understanding of creation, for
example.

We can debate the fine points of natural theology, an in-house debate that
has been going on for millennia. Barth said "no," but even Barth's
disciples on this, Torrance and McGrath, say "yes" in a qualified way. So,
the theological question shouldn't be whether we can "detect design." It
should be "is God evident in creation, and if so, how and in what way?" I
think scripture affirms clearly that God is evident in creation. I don't
think, however, that scripture affirms that this evidence consists in
mathematical information theory or biochemical black boxes. IMHO, that
approach takes natural theology in wrong directions. Yet, IMHO, it remains
well within the range of an orthodox natural theology.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Steve Martin
<steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Here are my own answers to the most salient question FWIW:
>
> *1. Is the point of contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs)
> whether or not design is detectable?*
>
> No I don't think this is **THE** point of contention. I believe the
> point of contention is that many ID proponents insist that design *
> **MUST*** be scientifically detectable for theological reasons. Some /
> many / most evangelical TE's (at least myself) would say that accepting the
> ***existence*** of design / purpose is theologically necessary, but that
> scientific detectability is not.
>
> So to answer the flip side of Timaeus's question: Yes, I believe someone
> can be an orthodox Christian and believe in the possibility / probability /
> necessity of scientific design detection. From my own understanding, I
> believe that the insistence on the necessity of scientific design detection
> is a theologically inferior position (note: NOT theologically heretical).
> On the other hand, as a rank amateur from a theological perspective (& that
> may even be stretching the word amateur) I am open to hearing other points
> of view. So, I'd love to see Ted's initiative proceed.
>
> thanks,
> On 8/29/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi PvM,.
>>
>>
>>
>> "I disagree, but of course we come from different backgrounds which may
>> likely bias our perceptions."
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not a question of background; it's a question of investment. Because
>> of my own unique background and position, I have no investment in either
>> speaker winning. Thus I calls it as I sees it. But I understand that most
>> are either metaphysically and/or politically invested in this issue, thus
>> people will cheer for their own side. Perhaps that is what you thought I
>> was doing.
>>
>>
>>
>> You write:
>>
>>
>>
>> "My biggest disagreement is with Timaeus's statement
>>
>> <quote>Be this as it may, I would maintain that Jack's exposition,
>> however orthodox or accurate, is gloriously irrelevant to the main
>> point in contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs), that
>> point being whether or not design is detectable.</quote>"
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you go on to criticize mainstream ID. Since the ID views you
>> criticize are not my views, I feel no obligation to respond. But I can note
>> that you haven't dealt with the core of Timaeus's statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the point of contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs)
>> whether or not design is detectable?
>>
>>
>>
>> If that it not the point of contention, it means that TEs agree that
>> design is detectable, only that the main ID players have failed to deliver
>> when it comes to cosmology or biology (which is what I got out of your
>> reply). Am I correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> Look, perhaps the thread was too long and I did not read carefully enough,
>> so what was the answer to Timaeus' question?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Do you, Jack, assert that Christian faith logically necessitates that
>> design in nature (not necessarily design by the Christian God, just design
>> by some intelligence) can be perceivable only through the eyes of faith, and
>> can never be established by scientific means? Or do you concede that someone
>> can be a fully orthodox Christian, holding a "correct" view of creation, and
>> yet believe that at least some parts of God's design can be demonstrated by
>> reasoning from scientific data? I am not asking whether you agree that
>> design is scientifically detectable; I am asking you if a person can believe
>> in the possibility of design detection, and still be 100% orthodox in
>> Christian doctrine?"
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I would very much like to hear the answer to that question.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Mike Gene
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree, but of course we come from different backgrounds which may
>>> likely bias our perceptions.
>>>
>>> I am quite impressed by Jack Krebs providing such a compelling defense
>>> or at least compelling description of theistic evolution and showing
>>> how the UcD posters are quick to reject TE based on a misunderstanding
>>> of their position. Jack does a great job at describing the concept of
>>> randomness in evolution, so commonly misunderstood by the common ID
>>> proponent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless both Jack and Timaeus stand heads and shoulders above the
>>> common crowd.
>>>
>>>
>>> My biggest disagreement is with Timaeus's statement
>>>
>>> <quote>Be this as it may, I would maintain that Jack's exposition,
>>> however orthodox or accurate, is gloriously irrelevant to the main
>>> point in contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs), that
>>> point being whether or not design is detectable.</quote>
>>>
>>> While some forms of design are quite open to empirical detection by
>>> science, a point well presented by Wilkins and Elsberry in
>>> http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html, they
>>> also point out that rarefied design suffers from a major shortcoming,
>>> namely that it cannot compete with our ignorance, or in other words,
>>> as so well explained by Gedanken on the now mostly defunct ISCID site,
>>> the design inference, lacking a positive hypothesis cannot be compared
>>> to the hypothesis that a yet to be explained pathway, or mechanism can
>>> explain the observations. From history we have seen countless examples
>>> that show why such an inference is doomed to be unreliable, even
>>> Darwin understood that attributing thunder and lighting directly to
>>> God(s) was caused by an unfamiliarity with the scientific principles
>>> behind thunder and lightning.
>>>
>>> By conflating common design with rarefied design, Timaeus is making
>>> the same mistake as so many ID proponents before him. And yet it is
>>> this bait and switch which is the foundation for ID's approach. First
>>> argue that science is ill equipped to detect design, then point out
>>> how the design inference promises a 'reliable' detection of design
>>> (where design is now redefined to become the set theoretic complement
>>> of regularity and chance) and then point out that such an approach is
>>> scientific because that's how science supposedly detects design, where
>>> design is now redefined once again and ignores that not only is the
>>> design inference ill equipped to detect design reliably but also that
>>> the design which science has succesfully detected is fundamentally
>>> different from the design proposed by ID.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pim
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Martin (CSCA)

-- 
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.