Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

John,

I terribly disagree.
MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem and should
not be taught in schools. Unless the school treats it as a religious theory
in a comparative religion class. In the latter case it wouldn't violate the
[No] establishment clause.

Thank you,
David Clounch

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You are correct in calling materialism a religious view but wrongly calling
> ID science to counter this just further perpetuates the religious wars and
> accomplishes nothing constructive and confuses the debate.
>
> The church should refrain from trying to keep the atheists from hijacking
> science by changing the definition of science to allow them to win the
> debate. MN serves an important function and keeps science constrained to the
> nautral world and therefore rational in thought. Instead of attacking
> materialism and insisting on faith being accepted as science, the church
> should spend its efforts and energies educating its members on how to be
> educated and effective in this debate.
>
> C.S. Lewis was amazingly prescient in writing this when he did. The church
> should learn this lesson from him now.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/24/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
> > To: "Marcio Pie" <pie@ufpr.br>
> > Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 11:57 AM
> > Lewis said,
> >
> > 'If there is "Something Behind," then
> > either it will have to remain
> > altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in
> > some different way.
> > The statement that there is any such thing, and the
> > statement that there is
> > no such thing, are neither of them statements that science
> > can make. '
> >
> > This is why materialism is a religious view. Its not a
> > statement that
> > science can make. Separation of materialism and state is
> > appropriate just as
> > is separation of any religious view and state. Injecting
> > materialism as a
> > preferred view into a government run science curriculum
> > violates this.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Marcio Pie
> > <pie@ufpr.br> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Speaking of Mere Christianity, I thought this
> > quotation at the end of book
> > > 1 is particularly relevant to the ID discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ever since men were able to think, they
> > have been wondering what
> > > this
> > >
> > > universe really is and how it came to be there. And,
> > very roughly, two
> > > views
> > >
> > > have been held. First, there is what is called the
> > materialist view.
> > > People
> > >
> > > who take that view think that matter and space just
> > happen to exist,
> > > and
> > >
> > > always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the
> > matter, behaving
> > > in
> > >
> > > certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort
> > of fluke, to
> > > produce
> > >
> > > creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one
> > chance in a
> > > thousand
> > >
> > > something hit our sun and made it produce the
> > planets; and by
> > > another
> > >
> > > thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for
> > life, and the
> > > right
> > >
> > > temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so
> > some of the matter
> > > on
> > >
> > > this earth came alive; and then, by a very long
> > series of chances,
> > > the
> > >
> > > living creatures developed into things like us.
> > The other view is
> > > the
> > >
> > > religious view. According to it, what is behind
> > the universe is
> > > more
> > >
> > > like a mind than it is like anything else we know.
> > >
> > > That is to say, it is conscious, and has
> > purposes, and prefers
> > > one
> > >
> > > thing to another. And on this view it made the
> > universe, partly for
> > > purposes
> > >
> > > we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to
> > produce creatures
> > > like
> > >
> > > itself-I mean, like itself to the extent of
> > having minds. Please do
> > > not
> > >
> > > think that one of these views was held a long time
> > ago and that the
> > > other
> > >
> > > has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have
> > been thinking men
> > > both
> > >
> > > views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find
> > out which view is
> > > the
> > >
> > > right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science
> > works by experiments.
> > > It
> > >
> > > watches how things behave. Every scientific
> > statement in the long
> > > run,
> > >
> > > however complicated it looks, really means
> > something like, "I pointed
> > > the
> > >
> > > telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20
> > A.M. on January
> > > 15th
> > >
> > > and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this
> > stuff in a pot and heated it
> > > to
> > >
> > > such-and-such a temperature and it did
> > so-and-so." Do not think I am
> > > saying
> > >
> > > anything against science: I am only saying what its
> > job is. And the
> > > more
> > >
> > > scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would
> > agree with me that
> > > this
> > >
> > > is the job of science- and a very useful and
> > necessary job it is too.
> > > But
> > >
> > > why anything comes to be there at all, and whether
> > there is anything
> > > behind
> > >
> > > the things science observes-something of a
> > different kind-this is not
> > > a
> > >
> > > scientific question. If there is "Something
> > Behind," then either it
> > > will
> > >
> > > have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make
> > itself known in
> > > some
> > >
> > > different way. The statement that there is any such
> > thing, and the
> > > statement
> > >
> > > that there is no such thing, are neither of them
> > statements that science
> > > can
> > >
> > > make. And real scientists do not usually make them.
> > It is usually
> > > the
> > >
> > > journalists and popular novelists who have picked up
> > a few odds and ends
> > > of
> > >
> > > half-baked science from textbooks who go in for
> > them. After all, it
> > > is
> > >
> > > really a matter of common sense."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder if that means that C. S. Lewis is also part
> > of the conspiracy to
> > > deny the scientific legitimacy of the ID movement…
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marcio
> > >
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 26 00:53:30 2008