Re: [asa] restatement on ID as a "proof" of God (defense of Behe)

"But atheists seem to believe that -they- know would know if a miracle occurred, and that -they- know what an a miracle would look like under investigation. Is this not a problem? And I don't mean a problem that just means some atheist should be challenged to a public debate with a TE. I mean a problem where, if it's found that schoolbooks are teaching that evolution is an 'unguided, unplanned, purposeless' process, that lawsuits should be in order?"

I agree that lawsuits are in order if textbooks are inserting the above as science. That is every bit as egregious as insisting on special creation. But that is also all the more reason for ID to get their facts straight and their science right. This is what I meant by Behe empowering Coyne. He empowers him by giving him ammunition for him to use against him and discredit him with. If Behe and ID would just focus on demonstrating the above was non-science and not let themselves get co-mingled with god of the gaps arguments and YEC then I would sign up. But Collins and Miller are the ones filling that role instead of anyone in ID.

Further it is a mistake to imply that TE's are bashing Behe in order to curry favor with the atheists. That is another variation of the "you must not believe in miracles" canard. ID proponents should be asahmed of that.

John

Thanks

John

--- On Tue, 4/28/09, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] restatement on ID as a "proof" of God (defense of Behe)
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 9:34 PM
> I have to disagree here, Don. With some exception, TEs seem
> to fight battles
> first and foremost against other Christians. There's
> certainly a place for
> those kinds of discussions - I think doctrinal differences,
> etc should not
> be ignored or brushed aside. But the idea that 'if only
> TEs show that they
> hold ID proponents and YECs in utter contempt maybe
> atheistic scientists
> will realize they're not all bad!' is a failed
> strategy and was never a good
> idea to begin with. (Frankly, I'm a TE myself by most
> measures - Cameron
> would probably include me as someone in the ID camp.)
>
> That isn't to say that I think the ID proponents have
> made all stellar
> moves, though I think they've managed to do more good
> things than most TEs
> (at least on this list) recognize. But my number on problem
> with them is
> this: Cameron says that Neo-Darwinism is 90% metaphysics,
> 10% science. And
> frankly, I agree with that. And I wish - I really, truly
> wish - ID
> proponents would focus on that metaphysics, which is
> frankly utterly
> extraneous to the science.
>
> In my view, it's bad science to say that it's a
> scientific fact that
> evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. It's also
> bad science to say
> that it's a scientific fact that evolution is a guided,
> planned process.
> Both statements are an abuse of science, but guess which
> one of these
> statements is considered and treated as the stuff of
> scientific orthodoxy?
> I've seen many people on this list frankly admit to
> their being unable to
> scientific prove that a miracle occurred in natural
> history, or even imagine
> what an actual miracle would look like under scientific
> investigation. But
> atheists seem to believe that -they- know would know if a
> miracle occurred,
> and that -they- know what an a miracle would look like
> under investigation.
> Is this not a problem? And I don't mean a problem that
> just means some
> atheist should be challenged to a public debate with a TE.
> I mean a problem
> where, if it's found that schoolbooks are teaching that
> evolution is an
> 'unguided, unplanned, purposeless' process, that
> lawsuits should be in
> order?
>
> While I'm not a big fan of everything that comes out
> of, say, Uncommon
> Descent, I will say that I'm happy with quite a lot I
> do see. I'm happy with
> them arguing that a lot of what we see in nature (whether
> we're talking
> about specific organisms or aspects of organisms, or the
> very processes that
> lead to these things) certainly looks planned on every
> turn. I'm happy with
> them questioning the very nature of 'chance'. And
> I'm happy that, frankly,
> they play by /the exact same rules/ that many atheists do.
> Guys like
> Dawkins, Coyne, and otherwise were using 'design
> detection' on natural
> history long before Dembski and others took the stage. The
> only difference
> is that they were arguing no design was ever detected.
>
>
> >
> >> In my opinion it is counterproductive for
> Christians to challenge the
> > Darwinian mechanism. First it is a "god of the
> gaps approach" and hence
> > leads nowhere. Second, it needlessly alienates
> scientists who might
> > otherwise be sympathetic to Christianity. It is the TE
> people and not the ID
> > people who are fighting the battle on ground on which
> the battle is able to
> > be won.
> > Don
> >
> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 22:08:12 2009