Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Randy,

I see that you're getting more good edits. I assume that you will copy
the ASA List on the final version that you send.

Paul Bruggink'

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Randy Isaac<randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> Here's a stab at a more detailed response. I might even consider sending it
> to Olasky but would appreciate your edits first.
> Randy
>
> 1. "Collins recently set up the BioLogos Foundation: Its website defines
> BioLogos as "the belief that Darwinism is a correct science." This is
> confusing: Darwinism means unguided evolution, right?"
>  No, Darwinism means different things to different people and is used in
> different ways. In Collins's statement he is simply talking about the
> predominant role of descent with modification and natural selection in the
> development of species.
>
> 2. "Does Collins mean by "theistic evolution" the concept that God is
> guiding the evolutionary process?"
> Yes, Collins does mean God guiding the evolutionary process just as he
> guides the gravitational process and the electromagnetic process and so on.
>
> 3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
> No, not the ID that is so prominently discussed in the media. Yes, as
> Christians we all believe that our Creator is an intelligent designer and we
> all believe that the awesome world around us simply shouts out the existence
> of this intelligent designer. But that's not what ID is. ID is the belief
> that a) evolution is not an adequate explanation of the origin of species,
> and b) that there is a specific logical argument
> based on the information-like, specified complexity-type character of DNA
> for which the best
> explanation is an indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the argument
> with which Collins disagrees.
>
> 4."On the other hand, if Collins believes that God passively watches
> evolution unfold, isn't that deistic evolution? "
> No, Collins has never said that God passively watches evolution unfold. In
> Collins's views, God guides
> evolution and is intimately involved in sustaining his creation at every
> instant--the same for evolution as for gravity.
>
> 5."The basic problem may be that Collins believes in Christ's resurrection
> but doesn't seem to have a high view of Scripture, which is where we
> primarily learn about Christ's resurrection."
> No, that is mistaking a "high view of Scripture" for a particular
> interpretation of Scripture. Collins is committed to the inspiration of the
> Bible which
> to him means understanding it for exactly what God is teaching, not
> redefining "high view" to be man's thinking of what God might be teaching.
>
> 6. "For example, Collins' BioLogos website declares, "It seems likely that
> Adam and Eve were not individual historical characters, but represented a
> larger population of first humans who bore the image of God."
> Yes, that is a likely scientific interpretation and an appropriate biblical
> interpretation as well.
>
> 7."Many subsequent figures in the Bible, preeminently Jesus, referred to
> Adam as an individual: Were they deluded? "
> No, they were not deluded but neither were they modern scientists or
> historians trying to document a historical event. This was the conventional
> populist belief at the time and the message Jesus and Paul were giving was
> not a science lesson but a much deeper theological lesson. This isn't
> delusion, this is speaking in the language of the people. Similarly, Jesus
> most likely had a geocentric view
> of the world but this doesn't mean he was deluded--it was the perspective of
> the day. He didn't use it
> to teach a parable but his concern was not scientific accuracy.
>
> 8."Still, I'm not so worried about Collins' theological statements: Many
> readers can exegete them and come to their own conclusions. What I and many
> others need help with is the science. I'll put it simply and personally: I
> like Collins and find him convincing as he attacks ID. But when I hear Steve
> Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, a major new book published by
> HarperCollins and reviewed positively by many scientists, expound the flaws
> in Darwinism, I find him utterly convincing."
> It is true that Stephen Meyer is a very convincing writer. I recently
> obtained this book and am partially through reading it. It is indeed a well
> written manifesto--the definitive ID scientific apologetic. I do not yet
> find the arguments convincing but the
> arguments are made in such a persuasive style that many people will be
> impressed.
> 9."I don't understand the science well enough to ask Collins intelligent
> follow-up questions, so I'd love to see a discussion between Collins and
> Meyer. Earlier this year I asked Collins personally if he'd come to The
> King's College in the Empire State Building sometime and spend an hour
> before faculty and students discussing the issues with Meyer: We'd tape it
> and put excerpts in WORLD. Collins said no, and he has since said no to
> other entreaties."
> Collins has so many requests he has to choose. He would rather select
> discussions with biochemist counterparts. Meyer is not a biochemist or an
> information scientist. His PhD is in history and philosophy of science with
> an undergraduate
> degree in physics and geology. The argument in
> Signature in the Cell is not biochemical but informational.
>
> 10."Of course, he was busy earlier this year and he'll be even busier now.
> Collins may also be averse to sharing a platform with someone below his
> status, but Meyer has a Cambridge University Ph.D. and, as of 10:49 p.m. on
> July 6, had the No. 1 best-seller in Amazon's Kindle store in the "science
> and religion" category; Collins' book, The Language of God, was No. 3.
> (Note: Collins' has been out for a couple of years and has sold widely-but
> Meyer is a worthy challenger.)"
> Truth is not based on best-selling book volumes. Otherwise The Da Vinci code
> would have
> to be taken much more seriously.
> 11."I still want to hear two intelligent, influential guys discussing
> design, so I'm asking Collins publicly: Please, sir, busy senators and
> governors and major authors are coming to King's these days, and I suspect
> you too will be coming to Manhattan sometime. Whenever you do, can you spare
> an hour?"
> Come to the ASA meeting this weekend and that's exactly what you would
> hear.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis Venema
> To: George Murphy ; Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
> I think this bit speaks for itself. The author sees no apparent problem
> admitting that he doesn’t understand the science, but he is convinced by
> Meyer’s arguments. Methinks he finds what he wants to find:
>
> “...when I hear Steve Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, a major new
> book published by HarperCollins and reviewed positively by many scientists,
> expound the flaws in Darwinism, I find him utterly convincing.
> I don't understand the science well enough to ask Collins intelligent
> follow-up questions...”
>
> Show me a scientist who does understand the science and feels the same way,
> and then one could have a discussion about it.
>
> Dennis
>
> On 27/07/09 6:10 PM,
> "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> 2 of my reactions:
>
> The notion that a Christian doesn't have "a high view of scripture" because
> he understands that not everything in the Bible to be historical narrative
> is silly.
>
> The fact that a lot of people are buying Meyer's book doesn't make him a
> top, or even middling, scientist.  (His much-touted "peer reviewed" paper of
> a few years ago raknks as an average term paper.)  There's no reason why
> Collins should spend his time debating him in order to satisfy people like
> Olasky.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:  Randy  Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>
>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:23 PM
>
> Subject: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
>
>
> Marvin Olasky writes a column in World  magazine. Here is his take on
> Collins:
>
> http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15663
>
>
>
> My brother sent it to me for comment after I sent  him the Sam Harris op-ed.
> What are your reactions?
>
>
>
> Randy
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 28 11:18:25 2009