Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

I would guess that the reasons would be 1) WLC seems to believe the case for
darwinism has been oversold. I've seen some replies to him on this point,
namely that he doesn't seem to truly understand what evolution entails, and
how a modern view of evolution includes vastly more than simple mutation and
natural selection. In my experience, this isn't a point that ID proponents
run away from - many celebrate it and report on it eagerly. It may well be
that one scientist's evolutionary New Synthesis may be another man's gapless
design. 2) His attitude doesn't seem to be one of 'investing' in ID, such
that 'Well, if TE is entirely compatible with Christianity, why even
speculate about ID? Just accept evolution and be done with it.' Instead he
seems to be arguing that Christians see these questions in varying ways,
that we should be respectful of their views, and at the same time skeptical.
He comes across as appealing for - amazingly enough - moderation and charity
towards fellow Christians who disagree on these points, particularly insofar
as how they relate to theology.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'd like to see more of a clear statement from WLC on point 1 below. And
> if that's the case, why start investing in the ID stuff?
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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 Tue Nov 11 19:47:23 2008