Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 8/29/2008 9:00 AM >>> writes:

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."

Big <SNIP>

My good friend George Murphy will probably chime in on this, and
(rightfully) caution us again about the dangers of an independent natural
theology, and of the importance of viewing the creation through the eyes of
the crucified and risen Maker of heaven and earth. George, in combination
with Polkinghorne's emphasis on either the same or a very similar point, has
been very persuasive to me on both points. I sense however that George and
I still do not quite share the same view of natural theology; I don't think
he values it as highly as I do, although I fully accept his cautions: I
agree that natural theology without the cross can lead us to worship the
wrong God, and one of the things I like about most TE positions (vis-a-vis
the official ID view) is that it's so openly theological and specific about
who the designer is, from the get-go.

From my exchanges with the folks at UcD, it's even clearer to me that two
specific theological claims are attributed to TE generally, and often by
clear implication to all TEs, whether or not accurately. These are (1) the
claim that God cannot or must not do miracles in natural history; and (2)
that God must or should "hide" himself within the creation, such that it
can't be possible in principle to find scientific evidence for God's
existence.

Neither of these points of criticism, in my view, is without justification
in terms of specific TE writers, but neither is accurate as a broad
generalization. Mainstream science is absolutely insistent on (1), insofar
as mainstream science makes theological claims either implicitly or
explicitly, through the rules it imposes on the study of nature, which are
often glibly taken as rules binding on nature itself. This is what Hooykaas
called the "horror miraculi," and MN is equivalent to this limit being
placed on the study of nature; whether those limits are properly placed all
of the time on "nature" itself (which monotheists believe to be the creation
of a free creator, whose hands cannot be tied if the word "free" really
applies), is the key point here IMO. MN is not IMO the real problem here;
but of course ID proponents very loudly state that it is, and that it leads
inevitably to the view that the creator, if he/she exists, is being taken in
shackles out of the court of rational discourse. I strongly reject (1), and
with it Howard Van Till's principle of the "fully gifted creation." Who are
we, as mere creatures, to tell God how he must create and govern the
creation? I've always been with Newton & Clarke, not Leibniz, on this one.

As for (2), I'm somewhere in between where ID and this claim come out.
With Einstein, I would say that God does not wear his heart upon his sleeve
(contrary for example to the emblematic tradition of the Renaissance,
according to which there were emblems of the divine presence all over the
landscape); like Pascal and Dostoevsky, I believe that an act of faith must
take reason further than reason alone will go. On the other hand, I don't
think that the divine presence is completely hidden from view, even from the
view of unaided reason. There are what Polkinghorne calls "general hints of
the divine presence," and I believe that science can provide some of those
hints. To go beyond those hints, however, to real conclusions, involves a
lot more than science, and more than science and reason combined. One does
IMO need some idea of the identity of the designer, before the design
inference can be made to stick.

The subtlety of my view about science and the nature of the design
inference is a source of constant frustration to me--I'm not frustrated by
my viewpoint, not at all; I believe it's the correct view both
scientifically and theologically. I'm frustrated by those who will not
recognize its legitimacy--by those who insist that I must admit that the
design inference is fully scientific, lacking an essential theological or
metaphysical component; and by those who conclude that I don't believe in
design arguments at all, or that I am a strong fideist who can't give
rational support for his faith--or, even worse, that I won't endorse some
other view, when all is said and done, b/c I can't stand up to peer
pressure. Perhaps I should not be so frustrated when others are frustrated
with me.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:47:44 -0400