Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Bernie,

What you are saying is, again, true, but churches aren't what I was talking
about. I was talking about the real deep thinkers, such as the theists at
the ASA. I don't understand how someone like Sam Harris could tell the
difference between the theism of Randy from the theism of Bill Dembski. Or
for that matter, the theism of Henry Morris.

What I am saying is that all theistic teleologists have a vested interest in
defending the civil rights of Americans to believe in whatever form of
theistic teleology each individual chooses, (and to also engage in
science). This is vastly more important than which specific theory of
theistic teleology is the correct one. Tolerance is the operative word
here. This intramural warfare between YEC/OEC/ID/TE/others should be set
aside for the sake of all theists (hint hint). But when one group tries
to get government to exclude another group all that happens is that all
theistic teleology ends up being excluded.

I'm not just talking just about the Christian type of theistic teleology.
The Islamic and Judaeo type would be at risk as well.

I do not see atheists such as Sam Harris being the immediate threat. I see
intolerant theists as the main threat to all theism. Think about it.
Catholic Ken Miller deems it to be so incredibly important to exclude the
views of Catholic Mike Behe. But why is it that important? Especially when
what really happens is that all theism is excluded, leaving the only winners
to be the materialists (the Sam Harris's and PZ Meyer's of the world)?
Doesn't anybody get it that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
just to prove that you are right about the bathwater?

Put another way, you cannot defend theism (or teleology, whether theistic or
not) by bashing the 'bad' forms of theism and getting the secular law to
exclude only the 'bad' forms of theistic teleology. All you manage to
accomplish is all theistic teleology is excluded. Because of this one can
only sometimes wonder whether it is theists themselves who want all forms
of theistic teleology (and all forms of theism) excluded from public life.
This is why I am so down on religionists, Bernie.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> “The theists truly haven't adequately addressed the question. “
>
>
>
> I think churches avoid it (origins issues, evolution, etc.) like the plague
> because it is too controversial and hurts unity. Unity is very important,
> esp. if you want to have a large church. Atheists can argue all they want
> with each other, because they don’t have much organization… nothing
> comparable to a Christian megachurch, I think.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:53 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
> You are right. The problem is that theistic teleology comes in more than
> one flavor - it may come in a dozen potential flavors.
> ID is one type, Collins' worldview is another. But they all share the same
> substrate. So rejecting one flavor of theistic teleology in favor of
> another flavor may make sense to proponents of theistic teleology, but to an
> outsider it seems like all the same mistake.
> But don't blame the outsider. The theists truly haven't adequately
> addressed the question.
>
>
> I think ID, in some of its definitions, doesn't have to be theistic. It
> still might be wrong.
>
> Dave Clounch
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> “Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing ID.
> That seems contradictory to him.”
>
>
>
> That seems typical of the people at my evangelical church too. It is as if
> evolution=atheism and ID=Christianity.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Randy Isaac
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:07 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
>
>
> I'm not sure either direction is right. Olasky states his views of what ID
> is and he's rather far off the mark. Why wouldn't there be a problem if he
> simply thinks Collins is inconsistent by opposing a view which is the same
> as his own? I think I spelled out the kind of ID coverage that Collins would
> support. Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing
> ID. That seems contradictory to him. That's why he would like some
> clarification.
>
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:01 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
>
>
> Instead of getting hung up on trying to define ID for the purposes of a
> response here, why not respond by asking Olasky to explain what he views ID
> as comprising and why? If he wants to argue that what Collins believes about
> evolution actually qualifies as ID, I fail to see the problem. Wouldn't that
> be a step in the right direction? Or is the idea that Collins should be
> viewed as utterly distinct from ID, no matter what ID actually covers?
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Exactly what ID is is rather problematic. Regrettably, the given
> definitions seem to have more to do with the perceived audience appeal
> than to consistent delineation. As the Dover trial pointed out, the
> phrase is used as a substitute for creation science. It includes a
> wide range of levels of acceptance of evolution, from total denial to
> fairly full acceptance.
>
> What its claimed theological/philosophical base would be is also
> problematic. In particular, it is marketed as both a Christian
> apologetic and as a religiously neutral scientific endeavor.
>
> The strength of claims made also varies. Does ID assert that evidence
> of "design" is a well-supported scientific theory, or does it just
> have some curious observations in search of a theory, or is it merely
> a possibility that's worth investigating (or at least ought not be
> dismissed out of hand)?
>
> I am inclined to define ID as the search for evidence about
> supernatural agency in the physical world. As such, the definition
> covers Dawkins as well as Johnson-both are trying to support their
> theology by invoking science.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
>
>
> 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 Jul 29 19:23:43 2009