Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

Well their god does need state supported protection from our God. Its really not an even match otherwise. Really almost just have to feel sorry for them. Pity they are gambling their souls on such a powerless and frail deity that needs to be protected from others. John ________________________________ From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> Cc: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>; Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; asa@lists.calvin.edu Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 2:55:17 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith John, Then I think we  could agree that those who are saying that "science says the redemption story isn't true"  are hoodwinking everybody.  Best Regards, Dave C PS In Minnetonka Minnesota the school board voted to protect materialism from Christianity by rejecting state science standards. Seems to me they bought off on the idea that science says the redemption story isn't true.  That literally was their language - they "have to protect materialism from Christianity".  Their motivation and reasoning is religious in nature. On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:38 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote: I don't SETI is looking for God. I think SETI is looking for evidence to refute God. > >We disagree on alien intelligences. I don't think the Bible teaches that as you say but I don't think it forbids it either. I don't think the idea was concieved of at the time of the Bible. I think antipodes were the equivalent science fiction of the time. > >Regardless I think the lesson of the redemption story of humans on earth is for humans and set on earth for a reason. I think you are letting go of all objective moorings otherwise. > >John > > > > ________________________________ From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> >To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> >Cc: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>; Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; asa@lists.calvin.edu >Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 2:26:40 AM > >Subject: Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith > > > >Response to John > >John supports  an  argument as to why government, when it bans ID, is siding with materialism. (see below) It is engaging in the materialist fantasy that ID is Christian. > >I've never met a physics person who is against SETI. And I've never met one who thinks SETI is looking for God.  Or if alien intelligence, if we find it, is transcendental. > >I think the Bible teaches there are intelligent created beings other than humans.  Sorry, I don't see any conflict between alien intelligences and scripture.  I think YEC's have problems with aliens. I've never previously heard of a non-YEC having a problem. > >ID  ***IS*** secular.  So secular I once thought it would be  verboten by  most churches. >This is why is is insane for all the Christians to be claiming it, especially YEC types.  >ID isn't Christian whatsoever. In fact, it fits just fine with Islam. And many other religions. >I've seen Hindus endorse ID. And American Indians. > >This is why opposing ID  because it allegedly supports Christian creationism is just plain stupid.  Only materialists take that position. > >This is why John makes a really good argument as to why government, when it bans ID, is siding with materialism.   It is engaging in the fantasy that ID is Christian. > >Response to Schwarzwald: > >[quote] >It gets you to, at most, a powerful designer. Now, a powerful designer of nature is not compatible with atheism or standard naturalism - but it's at least broadly compatible with (among, again, many other types of designers) the Christian God. >[unquote] > >Cosmological design (which is similar to ID and is what Schwarzwald is referring to)  gets you to Fred Hoyle's  and Steven Weinberg's  super-intelligent tinkerer.  They are not Christians, and indeed oppose Christianity.  So if we ban these concepts from schools the effect is to install that which is left over - that which is compatible only with materialism.  That is what I object to. >The Christians who want to do this banning for puristic theological reasons are actually hurting everybody, including other Christians, including their own world view.  Dawkins is laughing.  How to get a  bunch of religionists banning religion? HURRAH!.  This is the stuff Screwtape wrote to his nephew Wormwood about.  > > > > > > > >  > > > >On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>This TE surely does not believe anything of the sort. I think the drama of creation plays out on earth. I reject the alien argument and the associated evolutionary "Manifest Destiny" baggage that comes with it, including space travel and planetary colonization, and endless time left on the prophetic calendar, etc. There are physical limits to how much dominion humans can achieve over creation and think we are approaching them. Earth is the only planet in our solar system that supports human life for a reason. In fact I think the obfuscation of this is part of the spiritual deception of the age. >> >>And I think most ID adherants and evangelical Christians agree with this as well. Alien intelligence is an ID ploy to skirt the conclusions of God and to keep it secular. But I don't think any of them believe that except maybe Wells. >> >>John >> >>  >> >> >> ________________________________ From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> >>To: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> >>Cc: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; asa@lists.calvin.edu >>Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 10:47:22 AM >>Subject: Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith >> >> >> >> >> >>On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote: >> >>Well, Schwarzwald, in a word: Yes. >>> >> >>If  unevolved means non-natural, then yes. Well.... then maybe. >> >>TE's surely believe alien intelligences are evolved, natural, non-transcendental, yet made by God. And if they have the ability to engineer the evolution of other lifeforms....... >> >>How is it they would be god?  >>  >> >> >>>At least in this context: the context is how the universe came to have the order we discern, and an "unevolved intelligence" in this context can only be a creator.  Would you disagree? >>> >> >>I disagree.  Cosmological evolution is different than biological evolution. The latter is simply re-arranging pre-existing matter. It has nothing to do with creating matter or laws of nature. >> >>Cheers, Dave >>  >> >> >>>Ted >>> >>>>>> Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> 11/12/2009 3:24 PM >>> >>> >>>Ted, >>> >>>Before I dig into a greater reply on this, I have to ask: Are you telling me >>>that any "unevolved intelligence" would by definition be God? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>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 Fri Nov 13 11:06:16 2009