RE: [asa] Olasky on Collins

"This intramural warfare between  YEC/OEC/ID/TE/others   should be set aside  for the sake of  all  theists (hint hint).   "

I think I might disagree. When an atheist hears Catholic Miller saying Catholic Behe is wrong, I think the obvious conclusion might be that Catholics have different views on these things. That is better, I think, than not having the debate and then thinking all Catholics think like either Behe OR Miller.

Atheists like to say that Christians are stupid, naïve, scientific illiterate, etc. So having a Catholic vs. Catholic debate on science disproves all that.

.Bernie

________________________________________
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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
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.