Re: [asa] TE Evangelism...

Heya John.

I think I've been banging this particular drum somewhat loudly, so this
interests me much. So, some responses are below.

7 do's and don'ts — a review
>
> 1. Don't fall for the idea promoted by Richard Dawkins, who says that if
> there's a God, we should be able to find Him through science. The ID people
> keep promoting this idea, too.
> Do promote an accurate understanding of science: that it has its limits.
>
> Why do I say this? Human experience is broader than the realm of science,
> and it includes things like art, love, humor, and faith. We humans have
> created this thing called science and purposely limited it to questions that
> are objectively measurable and repeatable and generally, physical.
> Creationists have taken this as a personal affront, as have many secular
> humanists, but it's simply a way of helping us keep our biases out of this
> particular subject.

I'd agree with this entirely, though I think the ID position is, as always,
a bit more complicated (I recall Dembski saying that his view of ID isn't
that "if there's a God, we should be able to find Him through science" but
more along the lines that, if our universe truly was designed, inferring
that design through science may be possible.)

> 2. Don't encourage people to limit the handiwork of God to His
> interruptions of nature. That's not what David had in mind when he said
> that the heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of
> His hands.
>
> Do encourage them to see God's handiwork in nature itself, just as they
> find it.
>
> What do I mean by this? By limiting themselves to the interruptions of
> nature, the extremists on both sides—the atheists on one far side and the
> creationists on the other—will both miss God's handiwork while looking right
> at it.
>
> So instead of picking a fight, how about we start with a commonsense fact
> that we can all agree on, like: the cosmos is orderly. Now we don't have
> to take scientists to court over this, and we don't have to try to change
> science. The literal meaning of "cosmos" is order, after all. The ancient
> Greeks, who first coined the term to mean order, and all people, naturally
> recognize the tremendous order we see in nature. And this is just the
> beginning of the many things we can agree on. We can make greater headway
> in witnessing to educated skeptics when we gently use the nature we both
> know to point them to the Lord, rather than using some strange
> interpretations of science that scare them away.

I could not agree more to this. In fact, this of all things has been my
principle complaint with TEs at large - the (perceived on my part) tendency
to limit talk about God and science to passing mentions of compatibility,
and strong denunciations of (typically ID or YEC) claimed abuses of science.
Lately I've been watching Reasons to Believe's site, and I continue to be
impressed at how they approach this - and I'm talking more about their
semi-daily observations about new developments in science and how this
reflects on a Creator. I don't think TE - or ID, necessarily - needs to
focus on any gaps whatsoever. At the same time, I think some perceived gaps
may well be worth discussing (qualia and the problem of consciousness comes
to mind.)

3. Don't contribute to the materialist's cause and help them promote the
> warfare model, the idea that people must choose between faith and mainstream
> science.
>
> Do mention that people like Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris have no
> trouble accepting both mainstream science and Jesus Christ as their personal
> Savior.

Again, agreed. I think Paul Davies (and yes, I know he's not a christian)
did everyone a great service last year by pointing out the faith inherent in
science, and in cosmology in particular - the subject of what 'faith' is
continues to be abused in many quarters. I do wonder, however, what Fred
would think of the 'warfare model' between Christianity and New Atheism,
particularly where NA scientists are concerned.

4. Don't expect to make any progress with skeptics by bringing up
> controversial and confrontational statements from the four or five
> Intelligent Design scientists.
>
> Do become acquainted with more helpful statements from mainstream
> scientists, like Simon Conway Morris, who draws our attention to the
> direction we can see in life's formative history, as in the convergence
> between so many marsupial and placental animals widely separated in time and
> space. He also draws our attention to the fact that sponges, without
> nerves, are already equipped with neuronal receptors, so that he calls them
> "animals in waiting." And he draws our attention to another primitive
> animal's genes for organs it doesn't yet possess, which he says "reveal a
> vertebrate in waiting."

A lot more could be said about this, but I agree with the general concept
here and wish there was more development of this perspective - and how it
gets advertised.

5. Don't lose your faith over the progression of hominids in the fossil
> record.
>
> Do think of those hominids as a case of "humans in waiting," as more
> evidence for God's amazing, unfolding plan.

Once again, agreed. Detecting a pattern in my responses here.

6. Don't restrict your thinking about God's planning in nature to
> whatever's most popular among evangelicals at the moment.
>
> Do learn from history. Remember how popular expectations among
> 17th-century Christians (for what nature's design ought to look like)
> changed, shifted in that century, from the idea that God's design could be
> recognized as a Platonic force and that fossils grew in the earth to
> replicate living forms, to the idea that God's handiwork should be taken at
> face value: stones shaped like seashells really had been seashells at one
> time—even if they were different from today's seashells and even if this
> meant that animals had become extinct and changed over time.

I'd hesitantly agree, though that's an awfully obscure reference. Not sure
just what he's trying to say here.

7. Don't limit God's ways to our ways or expect that His designs will be
> recognized because they'll look like our human designs.
>
> Do expect to often find designs in nature that are beyond our human
> designs. Do expect Him to create things that last far beyond human
> lifespans, things that can grow and develop and adapt to changing
> conditions, unlike our engineerings that are shorter term, rigid, and
> immutable.
>
> Then we can learn about, and join in, and rejoice in, the major recent
> discoveries in biology. Specifically, as we explained in some detail in our
> last info-report, we can praise God for organisms designed, not just with
> specified complexity that skeptics dispute, but designed with economy and
> flexibility, designed in ways that everyone can see, designed for change by:
>
> § Changing the time, place, or amount of one little chemical signal,
> § Exploratory behavior we see that explains the growth of
> microtubules, nerves, veins, and muscles so that these end up just where
> they need to be,
> § Extreme flexibility through weak linkage and modularity, and
> § Mutations of recessive genes that allow new traits to be passed on
> without a new kind of animal having to go through a "hopeful monster" stage.
>
> So do begin learning about this very different kind of design that's more
> flexible, more robust, more economical, more creative, than our designs,
> because this differentiates God from us, rather than bringing God down to
> our level, and it's this differentiation that glorifies God. He does things
> we can't do, in ways beyond our ways. And this is one of the ways nature
> truly declares the glory of God.
>
>
Now this one I'd put differently, though I find much to agree with here. I'm
extremely, unbelievably happy to read about an apparent TE advocating
discussion of design in nature. On the other hand, I'm not sure 'not like
our human designs' is appropriate here - I think what qualifies as human
design has changed and expanded dramatically, especially where programming
and such is concerned.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 11 19:38:23 2008