Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to change the subject in my
reply to the thread rather than the digest that I get.

************************************************************************
*************************************8

"It may well be that one scientist's evolutionary New Synthesis may be
another man's gapless design."

Precisely. It comes down to metaphysical perspective.

When ID proponents seek only what any other metaphysical perspective's
proponents might reasonably seek, i.e. the right to have their
metaphysical perspective on the menu of choices whenever scientific
findings raise questions that go beyond science, then I support the ID
proponents' argument.

But when ID proponents claim that mechanisms other than random points
mutations and organism-level natural selection somehow score points for
their metaphysical side, I disagree, for two reasons. First, random
point mutations and organism-level natural selection could well be God's
design, design that science itself cannot discern. Second, the other
mechanisms of evolution are no more or less natural, no more or less
able to be seen by faith as part of God's plan, than random point
mutations and organism-level natural selection.

Again, I appreciate much of William Lane Craig's work, but I realize
that I'm not entirely qualified to critically assess his philosophical
or cosmological arguments. I feel better qualified to assess his
position on biological evolution, and there I find his science
deficient, but his philosophy and theology still sound. I would
appreciate help from professional cosmologists, philosophers, and
theologians in evaluating those non-biological arguments of his that
seem sound to me.

Thanks!

Chuck

Charles F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Creighton University

Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu
 
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:46:45 -0500
From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Subject: 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 09:50:06 2008