Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs - attn John

I just wanted to comment on this.

See, I'm a TE. In fact I've reconciled my belief in God and Christ with
evolutionary theory, a 'naturalistic' origin of life, and more.

At the same time, though, I find myself wondering if we would ever be able
to detect an external, intelligent intervention in natural history that
wasn't surrounded by the equivalent of giant flashing neon signs. For
example, if ~60kya a group of humans (protohumans?) were exposed to
something with the goal of changing or even sparking their cultural and
intellectual development - whether by way of an instilled idea, or even a
subtle physical alteration. I could go on and on with examples of one
intervention or another, and putting aside theological questions of whether
God would 'need' to intervene in creation in such a way, I find myself
wondering - how could we ever scientifically detect such an intervention?
Particularly when even a very unlikely development could simply be
considered lucky, a mystery that will someday be explained, or 'solved' by
an ultimately false but apparently reasonable mechanism or event?

I think this is compounded by the fact that, for all the talk of
'supernatural', any miraculous or divine intervention in natural history
would (this time, putting aside the question of minds) be a manipulation of
the physical world. Moving, arranging, and/or orchestrating matter
purposefully. I've heard it said by some TEs that when they talk about
chance and randomness in natural history, what they really mean is
chance/random from our perspective - whereas from God's perspective, there
would either be no chance or not in the way we think (chance would be
another tool in God's arsenal, so to speak.) I'm tempted to say that what
seems like 'chance' could just as well be intended, either from foresight
(front-loading) or direct external intervention ('miracle').

I think science is utterly incapable of detecting design on the level of God
- either in a positive or negative sense. But that means that intervention
in natural history can't be falsified one way or the other. So I'm in the
odd position of saying that, while I'm a TE myself, I don't feel that I can
strongly condemn an RTB-style framework that argues for intervention in
natural history. Rather, a specific claim may be open to scientific
investigation (and like others, I suspect RTB may be in the wrong on some
points), but the bare and simple belief that there was special care and
direct action in history? I simply don't see how science can rule on that.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:14 AM, James Patterson
<james000777@bellsouth.net>wrote:

> Ironically, I feel that TE and ID are making the same mistake - compromise
> for (some sort of partial) acceptance by the majority...to become
> mainstream.
>
> If anyone is lying, theistic evolutionists are lying to themselves over the
> truth of neoDarwinian evolution as the only means for change to occur. You
> accept that God is real and created the heavens and earth, and created
> life.
> But then...you think he just...stops being involved in a "creative" way,
> and
> just sticks to the natural? If the evidence supported that, I would be in
> your camp, eating your beans. It doesn't. RTB has better food. :)
>
> JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 2:42 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)
>
> It pains me to say this but unfortunately I agree with you here. They don't
> see it but its the same error as YEC but they just concede more to science
> before they dig their heels in and go into denial. Its just a matter of
> degree although comparatively it is WAY better than YEC.
>
> Albeit well intentioned, they do put defending their concordist and literal
> interpretation of the Bible before the truth. They are trying to have it
> both ways but it just doesn't work. I have come to believe that God never
> intended for the scrpitures what we try to make out of them. The danger of
> this is that they get labeled as "Liars for Jesus" and that one is a hard
> one to counter.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 10/31/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)
> > To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 1:18 PM
> > Personally, I don't think the goal of Hugh Ross is to
> > follow the truth wherever it leads. I think his goal is to
> > defend the Bible in the atmosphere of an attack from
> > science, and the YEC position is not viable, which leaves
> > him and his OEC interpretation. Therefore, he's trying
> > to defend the Bible by using as much science as possible.
> > If he were to accept evolution, he'd have to change his
> > theological interpretation, and I think his theological
> > interpretation comes first.
> >
> > Sometimes science demands a new theological interpretation,
> > and he's resisting that... probably for the sake of
> > keeping the faith the same as it always was
> > (traditionalism), even in the face of modern science.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Ted Davis
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:48 AM
> > To: James Patterson; asa@calvin.edu; john_walley@yahoo.com
> > Cc: bstuart@reasons.org
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now
> > the flood)
> >
> > >>> John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> > 10/31/2008 7:56 AM >>> writes:
> >
> > I agree with RTB and ID on general principles if they
> > wouldn't deny and
> > spin CD and they wouldn't try to overplay their hand
> > and call faith science.
> >
> >
> > Ted comments:
> > This reflects Hugh Ross' personal approach to religious
> > faith. I've heard
> > him speak several times, and every time I come away with
> > the overwhelming
> > impression that he is a modern Cartesian--he requires
> > absolute proof for
> > something before he will "believe" it. It's
> > a highly unusual attitude for a
> > religious person, in my experience. I understand
> > everything I just wrote,
> > but I don't understand it all.
> >
> > He seems to strike a chord with many Christians, however,
> > judging from the
> > size and influence of his ministry. IMO, however, he puts
> > far too much
> > confidence in science's ability to generate indubitable
> > propositions, and
> > he's set the bar for religious belief far too high.
> > Whatever happened to
> > Polanyi's insight that we often need to commit to
> > things that we can't be
> > sure about?
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> > message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> > message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 3 08:22:58 2008