RE: [asa] Why does the devil have all the good science? WAS (WLC)

I don't see your response below and avoiding the issue altogether as the only two options. Possibly some middle ground option exists like WLC approaching Biola and asking them to consider revising their statement of faith to be less literal and concordant? Or possibly WLC and Collins and other prominent TE's release a statement together that is slightly less provocative than your verbage but still signifying an end to the warfare model approach?

As I have said before, even if they went underground and became closet TE's it would be progress if they at least just didn't deny the science and defend speculations that can be falsified. That is where they should start and that would do wonders for the intellectual credibility and relevance of the church.

Thanks

John

--- On Fri, 11/14/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Why does the devil have all the good science? WAS (WLC)
> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 3:49 PM
> John said:
> " If WLC could get past this and not think of
> frontloaded design and even embedded ramdomness within a
> range as being a threat to the faith and insisting that
> design should be scientifically detectable, then I think he
> would be in a much different league more like McGrath and
> Collins. The evangelical church really needs that level of
> intellectual thought brought down to the popular audiences
> and WLC could be just the one to do it. I pray that he and
> others in ID will come around to this soon."
>
> By the way- I probably agree with everything you said.
> Look at the above paragraph I quoted from you. Imagine
> William Lane Craig actually did what you suggested. Suppose
> he said "Evolution of human from apelike creature has
> been sufficiently shown by way of various DNA
> evidence." What would become of his ministry? Either
> Biola would fire him, or they would change the faith
> statement at Biola. Either his church would disown him, or
> they would also change. What about all his support from RTB
> (old Earthers)? They would all have to disown him, or
> follow him to the new place. The consequences are huge...
> is that holding him back? Thankfully my ministry or
> paycheck doesn't depend on my beliefs, so I can change
> them as I see fit. Not true for WLC- his beliefs are
> intertwined with his life's work and ministry.
>
> I don't think WLC is ignorant. I think he knows of the
> DNA evidence- he would have to if he read Collins book and
> talked to other leaders who have, which I'm sure he must
> have. Therefore- something strange is going on... I think
> he's trying to hold-on as long as he can claim
> there's a smidgen of doubt for human evolution. But I
> think the smidgen is no longer there.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; Schwarzwald
> Subject: [asa] Why does the devil have all the good
> science? WAS (WLC)
>
>
> I attend the church where WLC teaches a very popular Sunday
> School class and although I am not personally in his class,
> I have visited it. But many of the Atlanta RTB Chapter
> members that I know are in his class and know him well and
> some know he and his wife personally.
>
> It is not fair to say that he has less than honorable
> motives and that his ministry is anything other than a
> refreshing intellectual uplift and tremendous blessing to
> the church. He is the best we have that is effective at the
> mainstream popular level and that has any influence in
> evangelical circles. I still agree with Bernie though that
> our Christian Apologetics leaders can no longer avoid
> science and we can't take wishy washy positions on what
> the science really says.
>
> I do think he is held back considerably in his impact
> however by subscribing to the false notion of a conflict
> between faith and current science and the defensive warfare
> model like we see in Expelled. This gets back to
> Moorad's question earlier of any difference between the
> evolution in Darwinism and the evolution in TE implying that
> there needs to be any difference.
>
> Like the Christian backlash against the perceived evils of
> rock and roll in the 60's and the thought that that the
> devil had all the good music and the subsequent attempt to
> take it for ourselves and baptize it into the church, that
> appears to be what we have done with science in the ID
> movement and for the same reason. The church is tired of all
> the science being used by atheists to serve the devil so
> they react by coming up with a new and different science of
> their own. This is not properly thought out however and
> weakens the overall impact that we could have.
>
> If WLC could get past this and not think of frontloaded
> design and even embedded ramdomness within a range as being
> a threat to the faith and insisting that design should be
> scientifically detectable, then I think he would be in a
> much different league more like McGrath and Collins. The
> evangelical church really needs that level of intellectual
> thought brought down to the popular audiences and WLC could
> be just the one to do it. I pray that he and others in ID
> will come around to this soon.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 11/13/08, Schwarzwald
> <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008
> (William Lane Craig)
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 9:02 PM
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
> >
> > > If William Lane Craig accepted the evidence from
> DNA
> > for the biological
> > > evolution of apelike creature to human, then why
> would
> > he be "undecided" on
> > > the issue of whether evolution happened?
> > >
> > The article barely gets in to WLC's personal
> beliefs -
> > but let's have a
> > fresh look at what WLC says in that very article.
> >
> > "Since I think, for the reasons explained in the
> > podcast, that an
> > evolutionary theory is compatible with the biblical
> account
> > in Genesis 1,
> > the question of biological origins is for me a
> > straightforward scientific
> > question: what does the evidence indicate about the
> means
> > by which God
> > brought about life and biological complexity? My
> honest,
> > layman's assessment
> > of the evidence makes me sceptical of the
> neo-Darwinian
> > account and leaves
> > me with a probing agnosticism about the theory."
> >
> > So, he's saying outright that an evolutionary
> theory is
> > compatible with
> > Genesis 1. He said that his assessment of the data -
> as an
> > admitted layman -
> > makes him skeptical of the neo-Darwinian account, and
> his
> > position is one of
> > agnosticism. There's some subtler issues to
> consider
> > here, but I'll explain
> > that below.
> >
> > > In my experience, the biggest roadblock to
> accepting
> > evolution is accepting
> > > the biological origins of humans from lower
> animals,
> > rather than creation by
> > > fiat. In my experience, once this step of
> evolution
> > is accepted, the whole
> > > ball of wax can be swallowed. Accepting the
> evolution
> > of human from
> > > ape-like animal is a watershed event. Evidently,
> he
> > hasn't accepted it
> > > yet. Once he does, it will affect all of his
> theology
> > and interpretation
> > > for Genesis, and how to interpret the New
> Testament
> > which refers to
> > > Genesis. Maybe that consequence is too much for
> him
> > to deal with... resulting
> > > in loss of job and ministry. By being
> non-committal
> > he can stick to
> > > "traditional theology" and play it safe
> with
> > he current Christian masses.
> > >
> > Oddly enough, I think the view you're giving here
> is
> > older and out of touch.
> > Michael Denton accepts CD, but still has considerable
> > problems with
> > neo-darwinism. Michael Behe is in the same position.
> Mike
> > Gene (hey, he's a
> > prominent ID proponent after all) is entirely
> accepting of
> > much of
> > neo-darwinism as near as I can tell, yet has a
> perspective
> > that intuits
> > teleology in natural processes, mechanisms, and even
> > materials.
> > Front-loading is a concept that gets plenty of play in
> ID
> > circles - maybe
> > even TE circles - but which has some fundamental
> conflicts
> > with the
> > philosophical end of darwinism at the very least.
> >
> > In other words - it doesn't seem to be a watershed
> > event in the way you're
> > saying. Not anymore. You can accept 'biological
> origins
> > of humans from lower
> > animals' and still have reasons to suspect that
> > evolution-as-described is
> > not the whole story, or is inadequate. Considering
> that
> > even mainstream
> > scientists can and do argue about particular details
> of
> > evolution, even
> > while agreeing on the overall story (Gould's fight
> with
> > Dawkins is one
> > example of this. Group selection is another. The
> relevance
> > and possibility
> > of epigenetics, yet another.), it's not surprising
> that
> > objections to
> > neo-darwinism no longer need to pivot on 'either
> > evolution happened or it
> > didn't'. It's a new dispute, in many ways,
> and
> > more complicated and nuanced
> > perspectives are on the rise.
> >
> > Also, I'm not that interested in psychoanalyzing
> WLC to
> > know his 'real'
> > thoughts and motivations. But we can certainly look at
> what
> > he's said: If
> > he's 'trying to play it safe', he's
> doing a
> > poor job of it: He spends time
> > arguing that evolutionary theory is entirely
> compatible
> > with Christianity,
> > and Genesis 1 in particular (do the Christians you
> have in
> > mind often argue
> > this?). He draws a line between the issues of
> > evolutionary-extrapolations
> > and common descent, then goes on to approvingly quote
> Behe
> > all while
> > pointing out Behe accepts CD (again, would those
> Christians
> > feel this
> > comfortable with Behe's position, or with
> WLC's
> > distinction?) His theme
> > throughout the entire article is not one of rejecting
> > neo-darwinism,
> > certainly not evolution, but of being skeptical and
> careful
> > on this issue,
> > and encouraging investigation.
> >
> > If a mainstream, oft-quoted, well-known Christian
> apologist
> > taking this
> > position leads to anything but however qualified
> praise
> > from TEs, something
> > really is wrong, in my opinion - but the problem
> > doesn't lie with WLC.
> >
> >
> > > Maybe calling him a coward (when it comes to
> > accepting/promoting evolution)
> > > is the wrong thing- maybe the right word is a
> diplomat
> > or politician...
> > > reminds me of this quote:
> > >
> > Hardly seems appropriate to WLC, given what he's
> said
> > on this issue. If your
> > problem with him comes down to suspected personal
> > motivations and
> > psychoanalyzing, I don't know what to say.
> Especially
> > when his actual
> > commentary flies in the face of the conclusion.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Heya Bernie,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > But where did WLC oppose 'the evolution from
> > apelike creature to man',
> > > even in the article presented? The only place
> where he
> > specifically
> > > referenced human origins is here: "The
> transition
> > from lower primates to
> > > humans is nothing compared to what the theory
> > postulates on the grand
> > > scale." In other words, the bulk of the
> > skepticism he displays here has
> > > nothing to do with the specific issue of
> > apelike-to-human transition.
> > >
> > > What's more, WLC could accept the
> apelike-to-human
> > transition personally -
> > > and still have serious doubts about evolution, at
> > least in the orthodox
> > > sense. Denton is a great example of this that
> Timaeus
> > has been talking
> > > about. Behe as well accepts common descent and
> > biological precursors of that
> > > kind, and clearly Behe has (however misguided
> some may
> > judge him on this
> > > point) considerable problems with what he views
> as the
> > standard evolutionary
> > > scenario.
> > >
> > > Further, let's get this out in the open. I do
> > believe it's important, very
> > > important, for skeptics, agnostics, and atheists
> to be
> > reached out to by
> > > Christians. I personally am a TE, though I keep
> the
> > door open to ID
> > > possibilities outside the realm of science, and
> find
> > the larger ID movement
> > > to be pretty encouraging in many respects. But if
> the
> > desire is to make
> > > Christianity respectable in the eyes of atheists
> and
> > skeptics, guess what?
> > > It's not going to happen. And not because
> > Christianity or even some
> > > skepticism about origins is necessarily
> irrational,
> > but because the
> > > respectability of Christianity is not now and has
> > never been the central
> > > concern.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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."
> > >
> > > Bernie, look at what you've said here. First
> WLC
> > was a coward because you
> > > claim he never touches on the question of
> evolution.
> > Now you're implying
> > > he's a coward because he does touch on the
> > question - but only when asked.
> > > Sorry, this doesn't fly. Not when he's
> just
> > finished up a podcast where he
> > > discusses evolution - he didn't get
> blindsided at
> > a conference and end up
> > > discussing it because he was put on the spot. Not
> when
> > he just posted an
> > > article on his own site where he talks about the
> issue
> > in broad detail, and
> > > he's entirely free to field whatever
> questions he
> > likes. Not when he defends
> > > Christianity's compatibility with
> evolutionary
> > theory, and not when the
> > > principal author he quotes with regards to
> skepticism
> > about orthodox
> > > evolutionary theory is, of all people, Michael
> Denton.
> > >
> > > You may as well argue that Francis Collins is a
> coward
> > and scientifically
> > > ignorant, on the grounds that he's not nearly
> > active enough on this question
> > > and due to his expressing skepticism about
> > evolutionary explanations for
> > > altruism.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a tremendous oversimplification of
> philosophy,
> > and flat out wrong
> > > in many instances.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think the reaction some are having to
> WLC is
> > ludicrous. Has it
> > > really come to the point where entertaining and
> > encouraging some limited
> > > skepticism about orthodox evolutionary claims -
> *even
> > while asserting that
> > > orthodox evolutionary theory poses no threat to
> > Christianity* - is
> > > reprehensible and cowardly? Sorry - I think this
> > attitude is vastly more
> > > harmful to Christian ministry and relations in
> > general. I believe the
> > > primary concern of TEs should be in explaining to
> > people why TE is an
> > > acceptable position for a Christian to hold, why
> TE
> > does not rule out
> > > design, and generally making information on
> evolution
> > available. Not being
> > > overly upset because somewhere out there may be
> > Christians (some or many)
> > > who hold opinions contrary to scientific
> orthodoxy.
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Fri Nov 14 17:19:53 2008