RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Is it ridiculous to question which way the fusing of human chromosome #2
happened temporally? That is to say, which came first, the single
strand in humans that was divided in two or the two divided in
chimpanzees which jointed to become one?

Moorad

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:42 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Schwarzwald said about William Lane Craig:
"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."

It is fine to be moderate as long as the evidence isn't in... but when
the evidence is in, it is a matter of being wrong when trying to be
moderate. When the evidence comes in, it is time for taking sides. The
only reason to stay moderate in the face of the evidence is because of
fear- fear of being rejected by some (or much of the faithful). The
evidence for evolution from apelike creature to man is overwhelming, in
my opinion (pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2). This is no time
to be moderate, in my opinion, when one wants to be on the leading edge
of apologetics- esp. to a skeptical and atheist audience.

Yes- William Lane Craig addresses biological evolution, but it seems
like it only when asked. Other than that, he tries to avoid or
circumvent the discussion. I find that reprehensible for a person who
wants to be on the cutting edge of apologetics. And he certainly claims
to be in harmony with modern science, so there's no way for anyone to
accept scientific ignorance on his part because he's "only a
philosopher"- he doesn't claim to be "only a philosopher." Anyway, if a
philosopher is scientifically ignorant, their philosophy will be in
error. Philosophy is human logic/reason based on facts, so awareness of
all scientific facts is a foundation for philosophy.

,,,Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:47 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
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.

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 Wed Nov 12 12:06:42 2008