Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

But he's not avoiding evolution or dismissing it as irrelevant - here he is
talking about it explicitly, defending a variety of views on it (including a
non-interventionist, naturally unfolding view - shouldn't he be commended
for this?) He even argues that not only do Christians have nothing to fear
on this subject, but that they're in a position of unusual strength - they
can afford a greater amount of skepticism than an atheist can, since what
science indicates on this question need be no threat to their belief, while
it may potentially be a threat to the typical atheist's stance. Admittedly,
he also seems to think that ID has some persuasive arguments going for it -
but since he's a philosopher, that gets into a murky area (I can't help but
notice/feel that the philosophers who associate themselves with ID do so
primarily because they see the strength of ID in a philosophical sphere.
Meanwhile, some prominent objections to ID are based on the fact that what
they argue and speculate about is more properly philosophy than science.)

And frankly, I can sympathize with Craig's apparent stance here. If he truly
believes (and he certainly has great warrant to, and would not be alone)
that theistic evolution, interventionist ID, non-interventionist ID, or
progressive creationism are all views justifiable with a biblical faith..
then that's that. Agnosticism flows naturally, because what's at stake? He
can accept whatever view wins out. Again, in that article he seems to stress
exactly this point - which I think is one seriously worth considering
particularly by Christians, because it highlights a very promising way to
deal with these questions.

Some other things to keep in mind.

* WLC's ministry is primarily based on philosophical arguments, and that's
his own field of expertise. Even when he talks about the Big Bang, Kalam,
etc, he spends quite a lot of time approaching the questions from a
philosophical perspective. If you're expecting him to 'raise the scientific
awareness' of Christians in any way other than how he already does (making
reference to scientific models when appropriate in his
philosophical/apologetic arguments), that seems to be a bridge too far. If
we're going to pass blame around for scientific ignorance among Christians,
why blame two non-scientist ministers who frankly have a whole lot of
worthwhile topics to discuss and arguments to engage in? You could just as
easily blame Christian with a scientific background for not doing nearly
enough evangelizing. Is that appropriate?

* Despite stereotypes to the contrary, I don't think Christians occupy a
special place of ignorance when it comes to science. I've encounted plenty
of atheists who will aggressively swear to the truth of (and their belief
in) evolutionary theory - but whose knowledge of evolution only goes so far
as that commitment. Beyond that, many of them don't know much at all - say
'neutral drift' and they'll just stare at you. There seems to be some idea
that the person who is skeptical of evolution is automatically less informed
on the topic than the person who isn't skeptical. This is, frankly, inane.

* I've written on this list about how I wish TEs *would* be as aggressive as
both the ID movements and RTB when it comes to showing how their faith is
bolstered by science. And let me reiterate - bolsters. If TEs are serious
about believing in design, even if they don't believe that design can be
detected by science (a view I share), then the onus is still on them to get
the message out. Rely on intellectual arguments about why and how design
could be/is evident in nature. Rely on philosophical appeals. And certainly
be willing to call out guys like Dawkins and otherwise when they abuse
science in the same way they accuse ID proponents and otherwise of abusing
science - namely by acting as if science is capable of detecting God's
design in nature. When a guy like Francisco Ayala ends up being billed as a
TE, there's a problem.

* I should stipulate that there is one organization I respect when it comes
to the TE position - The Templeton Foundation, however broad their
commitments may be. You'll notice, by the way, that Templeton is regarded in
ways that range from suspicion to outright hostility by some scientists,
particularly of the atheist bend. What this indicates is that there is going
to be hostility towards even a sincere TE position - and this is something
that TEs not only have to accept, but brave. Hostility to Christianity by
many scientists may have far less to do with 'They don't accept
evolution/science' than some would believe.

Let me point out that I disagree with Ravi and Craig both on some issues. I
don't think their (or any) ministry is perfect. But frankly, if the desire
is for more Christians to understand that evolution is no threat to their
faith, there's going to have to be more effort from TEs themselves. Perhaps
even another organized and aggressive ministry - it's not like Ravi, WLC, or
others are all occupying the field and no one else is capable of getting in
there and doing what's necessary.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Schwarzwald said:
> "I assume you'll take back the charge that WLC is a coward?"
>
>
>
> That's my personal opinion which I should maybe keep private. And that is
> only a 'coward' when it comes to talking about evolution. It came out of my
> frustration as one who really likes him and really listened to many of his
> teachings to try to understand his viewpoint, and coming to realize that he
> avoids evolution and even goes as far as to recommend others also avoiding
> it- dismissing it as irrelevant because of philosophical reasons that
> everything has to be started by God anyway.
>
>
>
> I don't believe him when he says he is agnostic. He obviously put a lot of
> thought into it by looking at his detailed response. I think it is entirely
> possible that he is a ministry leader who is concerned about not upsetting
> the status quo because it would diminish his ministry revenue income and
> standing in the Christian community if he were to outright accept biological
> evolution- just my guess and my opinion. Another guy who does the same
> thing for the same reason, I think, is Ravi Zacharias. They are both billing
> themselves as being on the front-lines of apologetics, yet seem to avoid the
> discussion of evolution like the plaque, and that really upsets me.
> Evolution is probably THE hottest apologetic topic when it comes to talking
> with atheists, and most Christians seem to be ignorant of it, because our
> leaders are afraid to speak about it. See if you can find a link with Ravi
> talking about biological evolution. I blame the scientific ignorance of the
> church masses on these kinds of national ministry leaders. Obviously they
> have their very strong points; no one's perfect I guess (present company
> excepted).
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2008 2:44 PM
>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008
>
>
>
> 1. Why aren't the reasons he gives good enough? If TE is true, if some form
> of ID is true, or if some form of progressive creationism or otherwise is
> true, he sees no biblical conflict or threat to his faith. So he has no
> theological pressure to commit - and since the whole debate is politically
> charged, plenty of reason to be cautious.
> 2. 'Accepts evolution' is loaded. The same book where he shows an
> acceptance of evolution is the same book where he's arguing that there is
> tremendous design apparent in evolution, along within other natural settings
> - he accepts evolution in a way markedly different from, say, Ken Miller.
> Besides, what's being appealed to are Denton's arguments - not Denton
> himself. If Darwin recanted and dismissed all his theories on his deathbed,
> would it be improper to refer to his earlier works if it was believed the
> points were persuasive?
>
> BTW - I assume you'll take back the charge that WLC is a coward? Since in
> this article and apparently his podcast (I have yet to listen to it), he not
> only discusses evolution, but argues that it's entirely compatible with
> Christianity, and doesn't even require interventions in order to be so.
> Rather speaks against the idea that he's afraid of talking about this
> subject, or against defending a 'naturally unfolding' biological world.
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that link. Two things:
>
>
>
> 1. He claims to be agnostic on the fact of evolution. I wonder why
> that is… I mean the real reason.
> 2. He appeals to Michael Denton for arguments against evolution. Just
> like my Theology teacher did. Then I found out, after finishing the class,
> Denton's book (Evolution in Crisis) was really old and now Denton accepts
> evolution! Why appeal to the old Denton when the new Denton no longer
> believes it ???
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:50 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008
>
>
>
> Funny timing in that regard. Just today WLC updated Reasonable Faith about
> this very topic.
>
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Looking at their agenda- looks like evolution is not a topic. From
> listening to William Lane Craig, I get the impression that he dodges the
> question of evolution at every opportunity. He's afraid to address it
> head-on in my experience. I've listened to a lot of his podcasts. I like
> him a lot- just think he is a coward in that respect... especially since he
> claims to be on the forefront of apologetics.
>
> My guess is he thinks that the Christian faithful isn't yet ready to accept
> evolution, and so he avoids it, by saying other philosophical points make
> the debate unimportant. (The evidence for a Creator means you don't have to
> accept a naturalistic godless universe... but what about evolution as God's
> method of design??? I don't think he'll address it.)
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:16 PM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] Apologetics Conference 2008
>
> http://apologeticsconference.com/ <http://apologeticsconference.com/>
>
> November 20-22, 2008
> Smithfield, Rhode Island
>
>
> Inspirational Speakers:
>
> William Lane Craig
> Paul Copan
> Gary Habermas
> Craig Evans
> Darrell Bock
> Charles Quarles
> Brett Kunkle
> And Many More <http://apologeticsconference.com/speakers.html <
> http://apologeticsconference.com/speakers.html> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 10 19:52:48 2008