Re: Identity of the Designer: was:Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

Hi David,

"I have two problems with ID's inability to identify a particular
designer. I firmly agree that ID-type evidence would not indicate a
particular designer. However, ID tries to simultaneously market
itself as
1. THE Christian approach to origins and as
2. a purely scientific approach, compatible with various
(a)theologies, that happens to have found some problems with currently
prevailing scientific models and as
3. merely suggesting that one ought to be able to freely investigate
the question.

This inconsistent self-presentation approach is not honest."

I agree. For example, it makes no sense on one hand, to attack TE as some
type of inferior Christian approach, yet advocate an approach that is
comfortably embraced by non-Christians and non-theists.

"Of course, an individual ID advocate can try to distance himself from the
misuses by others and clearly and consistently espouse a single
position, acknowledging that he disagrees with other ID advocates
about various points, but the standard popular ID has serious problems
on this point."

But let's not forget that according to no less than Nick Matzke, I am a
"prominent" ID proponent. LOL. ;)

Whenever you are talking about something that is "standard popular," chances
are that you are dealing with something that has emerged through the filters
of popular media coverage and socio-political appeal. For example, the
standard popular expression of atheism now runs through Dawkins and the New
Atheist movement, but I suspect you would not have trouble finding atheistic
philosophers who will tell you it is a distorted expression of atheism
(i.e., atheism does not entail Dawkins' bigoted notion that all religious
parents are child abusers).

What matters is not popularity or public exposure; what matters is the logic
of a position. Almost all socio-political movements express themselves with
"inconsistent self-presentation."

- Mike Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Identity of the Designer: was:Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists,
Agnostics & Apatheist

>> (Dawkins further argues that the only process that generates complexity
>> from simplicity is evolution).<
>
> Nope, good old entropy can do that (e.g., melting-the change from a
> simple, orderly arrangement of molecules to more complicated, less
> regular one), as can something governed by a chaotic formula (in the
> strict mathematical sense). Funny how Dawkins sounds almost like an
> ID advocate-just substitute "intelligence" for "evolution" and you're
> quoting Meyers instead.
>
> I have two problems with ID's inability to identify a particular
> designer. I firmly agree that ID-type evidence would not indicate a
> particular designer. However, ID tries to simultaneously market
> itself as
> 1. THE Christian approach to origins and as
> 2. a purely scientific approach, compatible with various
> (a)theologies, that happens to have found some problems with currently
> prevailing scientific models and as
> 3. merely suggesting that one ought to be able to freely investigate
> the question.
>
> This inconsistent self-presentation approach is not honest. Of
> course, an individual ID advocate can try to distance himself from the
> misuses by others and clearly and consistently espouse a single
> position, acknowledging that he disagrees with other ID advocates
> about various points, but the standard popular ID has serious problems
> on this point.
>
> My other problem is that it seems theologically unsound. The
> fundamental dichotomy in humanity is whether you put your trust in
> Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord or not. Wells and Dawkins are both on
> the wrong side of the divide. Creation science and ID both tend to
> put more emphasis on what you believe about the method and/or timing
> of creation than on who the creator was. This also relates to ID
> seeing itself as battling materialism. Materialism is bad, but it's
> not the only bad, and just because one is opposing materialism does
> not excuse neglecting other aspects of Christianity-our chief end is
> glorifying God, and fighting materialism is good only in so far as we
> glorify God in how we do it (though of course, God is skilled and
> extremely practiced at bringing good out of what we mess up).
> Similarly, the function of Biblical miracles is primarily as signs,
> pointing uniquely to God as opposed to any other deity, etc. A
> miracle pointing to "generic designer" is out of keeping with this.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 1 16:51:14 2008