Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Bernie,
May I suggest you seem slightly confused about what is debate and what is
intramural warfare?

Warfare isn't a matter of debate and its not merely an intellectual
consideration. These lawsuits are far more than that. They are a matter of
appealing to secular government to decide what is an intramural religious
matter. There's a biblical mandate against doing that. And it takes a
spirit of intolerance.

Well, we've seen it (intolerance) all before across history. The thirty
years war, etc etc.
Burning Tyndale at the stake. Then two years later declaring Tyndale's
bible to be the official book of the land all across England.

Bernie, I despair that you don't seem to even know what I am talking about.

Consider Sam Harris's real viewpoint (not that I'm trying to put words in
his mouth): Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. That, seems to
me, is his true viewpoint.
And the YECs seem to agree with him. So here we have two religious groups:
an atheist religious viewpoint and one theist religious viewpoint, and
both agree. But wait! A third theist group says the opposite - evolution is
compatible with Christianity. This is the Mike Zimmerman petition signed
by 10000+ ministers specifically stating a certain theistic religious
viewpoint.

  So how is a secular government supposed to choose between these religious
viewpoints? Is a secular government supposed to say that one trumps
another? I think the answer is no, a secular government cannot choose a
preferred religious viewpoint. I say that because the U.S. Supreme Court
has said government cannot prefer non-religion over religion, or religion
over non-religion, or one religion over another.

So by all means have a debate, but not before government and not before
courts. And never ever ask a government agency to assign second class
citizenship to someone because they hold to or are compatible with a certain
religious viewpoint. Thats the foul. Denigrating a viewpoint because of
its religious implications or its religious content.

This is why to me the issue isnt a struggle over opinions on origins or
destinies. Its a struggle to affirm civil rights. Sadly, most people who
study the interface of science and religion seem to just not give a hoot
about civil rights. All they care about is whether their particular view
wins. Nobody cares about championing constitutional neutrality.
Consequently, the civil rights of everyone in general are in jeopardy.

I hope everyone realizes that anywhere in the US where Mike Behe's books can
be banned then so can Francis Collin's books be banned. Thats what the
spitting match between TE's and other theists has brought about. Do you
think thats healthy Bernie?
Seems to me it works against the debate you are asking for.
Well you may not personally care about whether Collin's books are banned,
but I'd guess that some ASA members do. And if it bothers them then they
should start caring less about being right and more about defending civil
rights and constitutional neutrality.

David Clounch

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> "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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 30 12:18:04 2009