Ruse on Dawkins’ Delusion

_{Mark

February 19, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael Ruse on Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” (heavily edited)

“God is getting a bit of a bashing these days. Above all, there is the smash-hit best seller The God Delusion, by the brilliant science writer Richard Dawkins. Why this sudden enthusiasm for atheism? The new skeptics are writing brilliant works, bringing reason and evidence to bear on the God question, and showing in altogether new ways why religion is false and dangerous to boot.

Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). Dawkins is entirely ignorant of the fact that no believer – has ever thought that arguments are the best support for belief. John Henry Newman wrote: “I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design.”

Dawkins is a man truly out of his depth. Does he honestly think that no philosopher or theologian has ever thought of or worried about the infinite regress of the cosmological argument?

One person who comes in for withering scorn in The God Delusion is me. Even though I am not a Christian, I nevertheless think that one can be a Christian with integrity and that Darwinism does not in itself preclude Christianity. In fighting fundamentalism – from scientific creationism to intelligent design theory – one should be willing to work with liberal Christians.

Suppose it is true – that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? Perhaps, given the U.S. Constitution, the creationists are right and Darwinism should be excluded. ”

MICHAEL RUSE ISIS volume 98, Issue 4, Page 814–816, Dec 2007

Comments

StephenB (5):
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how one reconciles Theism (purposeful, mindful, creator) with Darwinism (purposeless, mindlesss process).
Let me take a whack at this one. When construction workers pour cement, the frequently remove the air bubbles with a vibrator that they stick into the pour. The purpose of the vibrator is to induce "randomness" though the intended result is not random. By the same token, many theistic evolutionists would likely agree with me that God knew that the laws he made, including the "vibration" of random mutation, would result in the class of creature that he could have a relationship with. As such, the random process described by evolution may be very much like the random process used by the construction industry. Jerry(34):
You have joined hands with a group that espouses nonsense science based on ideology alone
I think that the assumption that the only reason one is a YEC is ideology is somewhat misguided. Do remember that the darwinian community says the same about the IDer, obviously wrongly. I remember a discussion with Peter Borger on ISCID's brainstorms. He, a biologist, says that his science fits easier with a young biology than with an old one. When challenged about all of the other science that implies an old earth, he responds by saying that he is a biologist, not one trained in the other sciences. His science, he contends, requires either regular miraculous intervention to undo the destruction of deleterious mutations, or it requires a young biology. If PB can honestly make statements like this, then it is not unreasonable for scientists in specialized fields, including the field of biology, to recognize that their science is best supported by a young earth. I, therefore, am not willing to contend that PB is a young earther because of religious ideology. Further, I believe that PBs voice should be welcomed within the ID community.bFast_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

pannenberg There’s just so much data out there pointing to an old cosmos though. I agree. Just a few examples: Trees produce annual rings of varying thickness. One can begin by taking the pattern in the oldest rings in living trees and unmistakably match the pattern with the youngest rings in petrified trees. You can go back farther than 6000 years by that alone. Annual deposition of snowfall on glaciers leaves a distinct layer each year. Ice cores from very old glaciers have a million layers. Continental drift happens at a steady pace. Africa and South America fit together like a hand in a glove but the rate of drift, which is well understood by new continental plate forming in oceanic rifts, requires that many millions of years of drift occured to reach the current separation. Volcanic islands such as the Hawaiin chain where the islands are formed one by one as the crust passes over a fixed hot spot in the mantle can be seen progressively eroding when they are past the hot spot at an erosion rate which requires millions of years for the extinct volcano cone to erode back beneath the sea again. Galaxies with measurable velocities can be seen a great distance apart with obvious disruption caused by a close encounter between them. The current velocities require many millions of years to get that far apart. There is so much disparate evidence of an old universe everywhere we look that if the universe was created a mere 6000 years ago then whoever or whatever did the creating went to an awful lot of trouble to make it appear to be vastly older than that. DaveScot_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Jerry: with all due respect, I didn’t say that the products of process “A” never undergo evolutionary change. My purpose was to establish a descriptive vocabulary for analysis. I am reading Michael Behe’s latest book right now and I agree with most of what I find there. I assume that you agree with me that Michael Behe has established the “edge” of evolution, and that it can do no more than what he says it can do. If that assumption is wrong, please let me know. Also, you are not, in my judgment, sufficiently differentiating between Behe’s evolutionary paradigm and the TE paradigm. The distance between them is greater than what you seem to want to acknowledge. Further, we do not know for sure that the human and animals species are as changeable as you, me and Behe think they are. Even though your points are well-thought out, I am not at all sure that Demski, Meyer or all the other ID’s would sign on to your analysis in every detail. So, I don’t think you can confidently speak for the whole ID movement. In any case, we are getting away from the very reason that I raised the issue in the first place. I said originally that Christian Darwinists are irrational because they profess a religion that celebrates the perceptibility God’s design, while they hold to a science that disavows it. Further, they quote St. Thomas Aquinas, Mr. Design, to argue against design. Further still, they subordinate their religion to their science, even as they go out of their way to publicize that same religion. I could go on, but that will do for now. You obviously disagree with my point that the TE’s are irrational or else you would not have challenged it. And you have challenged it many times. So, given the criteria that I have just established (I will offer many more if you like), what I am asking you to explain is why you think that their position is rational and why I am wrong.StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

-----Jason Rennie: "What you propose is incompatible and irredeemably so. The problem is that Darwinism != evolution. I’m not a theistic evolutionist for a variety of reasons, but the people that subscribe to the idea of evolution do not necessarily embrace the nihilistic implications of full fledged Darwinism. God could operate purposefully through an evolutionary process in a number of ways (in theory anyway). The problem is with the explicitly purposeless approach that is the problem." Hi Jason: I think we are in agreement. I agree that there is such a thing as legitimate theistic evolution. However, I insist that the process must be guided. I further insists that the so-called theistic evolutionists are they are called today are really Christian Darwinists under another name, because they are positing an undguided process. Or, am I presuming that you agree with me when you don't. Jerry, seems to disagree with me, suggesting that they are proposing a process that is both guided and unguided.StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Mr. Rennie, have you ever thought of emigrating to the United States? With all due respect to the UK. :) You have good ideas.PannenbergOmega_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Atom: Let’s stop worrying so much about what others think and just focus on slowly but surely making progress in the science. The publicity from actual discoveries and predictions will eventually come. I agree that a true scientist should not worry about what others think and that should include everybody, even members of one's own religion. Otherwise, we are guilty of the same bias that we accuse the Darwinists of harboring. We should go wherever the data leads. Right now the data leads to an old earth and that's where we should go. I see no reason to accomodate a faction just because they don't agree with the data. They are basing their belief solely on a few obscure passages in one book, passages that are clearly open to interpretation. In my opinion, their faith is not in question but their logic is. The fact remains that the God of the Bible is also known as the Ancient of days, not the Young of days.Mapou_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Atom, If you want the big tent then never, never complain about ID being misunderstood. You have joined hands with a group that espouses nonsense science based on ideology alone so stand up and be prepared to have ID be called nonsense too and lose your right to also call Darwinist nonsense. There is an expression "the pot calling the kettle black" which applies.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Is there any reason people aren't taking this "Darwinism is a religion" approach in court ? Given that youcould actually call Dawkins or Dennett as a witness in favour of that proposition and cite their works extensivly. They could even be called as expert witnesses. Ironically they would either have to "help the creationists" or else make public fools of themselves by admitting on the stand to telling bald faced lies in everything they have recently written. Given the egos of the people involved i'd doubt they would do that even in service to the "cause"Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

No disrespect to YECs intended in my last statement. Good point, as usual Atom.PannenbergOmega_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

"I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how one reconciles Theism (purposeful, mindful, creator) with Darwinism (purposeless, mindlesss process)." Hi StephenB, What you propose is incompatible and irredeemably so. The problem is that Darwinism != evolution. I'm not a theistic evolutionist for a variety of reasons, but the people that subscribe to the idea of evolution do not necessarily embrace the nihilistic implications of full fledged Darwinism. God could operate purposefully through an evolutionary process in a number of ways (in theory anyway). The problem is with the explicitly purposeless approach that is the problem.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

I'm with bFast. I like the tent as it is: Muslims, YECs, Agnostics, Deists, and whoever else can help with research into design in the universe. Trying to placate the Darwinists/Materialists is a losing game. Don't think that abandoning your YEC friends will gain you favor in their eyes. Heck, they even say things about Ken Miller (a fellow Darwinist) since he has religious convictions and Ruse, since he respects religious people! I don't think ID needs anyone's approval. If there really is design in the universe, then no amount of political harrassment or human effort can change that. Even if ID is laughed out of town (which it is in academia and popular media), it doesn't change the facts of the earth's history. Let's stop worrying so much about what others think and just focus on slowly but surely making progress in the science. The publicity from actual discoveries and predictions will eventually come.Atom_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

That would be awesome if science ended up proving that it was a young universe after all. There's just so much data out there pointing to an old cosmos though. I mean doubting traditional darwinian theory is one thing (that's radical enough). But being a Young Earth Creationist, that would be living in a vacuum.PannenbergOmega_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB, You have several misunderstandings. I will point out what I think is the correct interpretation. "If it is A, then the texture of the finished product has been decided on beforehand, if it is B, then there is no way of knowing what the finished product will be like." This is not correct since for B there is constraint on what can appear depending on the original gene pool. Over time most new species will appear under the B scenario but will be constrained from the original gene pool and what little variations may appear through mutations. The variations will be trivial because as Behe has shown mutations are very limited as to what can appear. So B will produce most of the species we see once the original gene pool arises from process A. Let's take an example, birds. Birds arise from process A and have a fairly wide gene pool. Over time, 130 million years various new families, genera and species arise as this gene pool gets narrowed due to environmental process and natural selection. We see a lot of different birds, some larger, some smaller, some with different body shapes but none that are inconsistent with the original gene pool with some minor mutations. Process A starts the gene pool and process B produces the variety but within definite boundaries. "If it is A, then design is PERCEIVED, and open to scientific investigation; If it is B, then design is merely CONCEIVED, and cannot be the subject of rational inquiry." No, both can be examined by science. If you take my bird example, it is possible to show through genome analysis just what causes the different types of birds and my guess it will all be trivial such as different gene mutation leading to differences of size, shape, etc. If such is the case then we have proof of the power of natural selection acting on minor mutations to produce al the variety but we also have proof of its limitations. We have the perfect world for ID. Acceptance of Darwinian process for minor variation which explains most species in the world and proof that it cannot handle the big stuff. Then ID is the true science and current biology is shown for what it is, ideological. "If it is A, then God/intelligent designer created some things by design (DNA molecule, human souls) and some things through law and contingency (snowflakes, moon craters); If it is B, then either God/intelligent designer created everything through contingency (chance), or else there is no God/intelligent designer and everything created itself." You use the word "everything" for process B. Just think in terms of most things but only after the heavy lifting was done by process A. And just remember that process B is limited so we will have definite limitation on what can turn up. After all a bird is a bird even though some are 40 times bigger than others and eat different things have different sounds etc.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

The big tent holds much more than the YECers. It also holds those who are not Judeo-Christians. I like the big tent as it is, if only because without it we'ld have to kick out Salvador Cordova. That would be a pitty. Hey, what do you do with those who are seriously open to the possibility of a young or old earth? Are they big enough to enjoy the big tent?bFast_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

JDH: What I don’t understand is why committed materialists like Dawkins debate at all. They have self-defeating arguments. I think people like Dawkins do it for the money. Dawkins is like a lawyer who's paid to defend a criminal and does it regardless of his belief in his client's guilt or innocence. Dawkins is more of an unscrupulous opportunist than anything else. He's PR man for the Darwinists. PZ Myers and others like him, on the other hand, do it because they're scared. They know that they don't really have a leg to stand on but they're scared of people like Dembski and Behe. They're scared because if the IDers succeed, their sworn enemy (Christian fundamentalists) will win a huge political victory and impose their morality on them through legislation via the ballot box. They're full of hate.Mapou_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Do you guys think Design Proponents will eventually put forth a "unified theory"? Looking at the big picture. The "Design of Life" explores a bit of what I'm talking about. For instance, in Chapter 6 (I think) the authors talk about how the progressive development of organisms, could have occurred in a bunch of unconnected stages (I like this idea). Or that it could have been a tree of life like process. It also talks about 'design modules' being created and undergoing environmental chance (maybe guided by intelligence). That's the kinda stuff I find cool about ID.PannenbergOmega_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

The difference between the Christian Faith and others is it is 99% belief on what is rather than what is man-generated philosophy. The 1% seems like 99% in light of our fallen nature and dependancy on our Originator - don't you think? I really would like to know how Jerry know or even can claim belief that "Most species in the world arrive via Darwinian processes." Are there not from ZERO to precious few "intermediate" forms from which to make this claim. Is this not an example of the "other" kind of faith?alan_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

What I don't understand is why committed materialists like Dawkins debate at all. They have self-defeating arguments. If I am right and the universe was designed with a purpose - then the materialist is wrong. If the materialist is right and the universe contains no purpose - why is he expending so much energy trying to convince me of the purposelessness of life.JDH_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Mapou, I agree as well. While the age of the Earth is found through naturalistic science, ID science should accept this date until -and only until - ID science has become the predominant paradigm. Then, we can conduct experiments on the age of the Earth that agree with Intelligent Design.chuckhumphry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Jerry: The only way out of this is for ID to formally discuss evolution in terms of a 4.5 billion year old earth and how life unfolded over time and where the probability of ID happened. That would chase the YEC’s away but leave ID with very few foot soldiers and a much smaller source of money. I agree. I've said it before. In this battle, it all comes down to who has the most money. How can ID scientists get their hands on enough money to conduct research and educate the public in a clear unambiguous manner? Even though I respect the YEC for their sincere convictions, I believe that they are mistaken and that they are being foolish for basing their faith on a particular interpretation of the book of Genesis, an interpretation which may turn out to be wrong. The problem is that the ID movement feels that it cannot sever its ties with YEC because, as you pointed out, of the money problem. My position is that IDers should do it anyway. If most IDers are Judeo-Christians, they should have faith that the money will come from somewhere. The Big Tent approach makes no sense, in my opinion. It shows a lack of courage and faith is 99% courage.Mapou_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Jerry, if only the TE’s would admit that some elements in the process are guided, there would be no problem. That would mean that some things are designed and we could all come together and sing the praises of ID. They claim that it is part of God’s design to allow design to be undetectable. The reason that TE’s are hard to understand is because they are irrational. Lets break it down: Evolution occurs in an organism either because [A] it is UNFOLDING according to some INTERNAL PRINCIPLE with some end in mind or [B] it is changing unpredictably and ADAPTING to the demands of the EXTERNAL environment with no end in mind. If it is A, then it is guided and non-random, if it is B, then it is unguided and random. If it is A, then a purposeful design is present in the thoughtful arrangement of physical elements that we call information, a manifestation of the internal principle that causes the unfolding; if it is B, then design is not present since the elements and the patterns of development have not been arranged. If it is A, then the texture of the finished product has been decided on beforehand, if it is B, then there is no way of knowing what the finished product will be like. If it is A, then design is PERCEIVED, and open to scientific investigation; If it is B, then design is merely CONCEIVED, and cannot be the subject of rational inquiry. If it is A, then God/intelligent designer created some things by design (DNA molecule, human souls) and some things through law and contingency (snowflakes, moon craters); If it is B, then either God/intelligent designer created everything through contingency (chance), or else there is no God/intelligent designer and everything created itself.StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

gore you said "I had a college professor tell me he thinks ID is garbage because it believes the earth is 6k years old. Its sad how misinformed people are, over the true arguments!" ID has can blame themselves for a lot of this. I would say that 95% of those going around promoting ID are YEC. ID encourages this in the so called big tent concept. So if a professor encounters an ID argument it is probably accompanied by a YEC argument. So I can understand how the confusion is made. It is constant fodder for those who are exposed to ID by an advocate. When I discuss this with non family member and some family members they think I have gone off the deep end because of the YEC associations. The net result is I never discuss it except here on UD. The only way out of this is for ID to formally discuss evolution in terms of a 4.5 billion year old earth and how life unfolded over time and where the probability of ID happened. That would chase the YEC's away but leave ID with very few foot soldiers and a much smaller source of money.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

I meant to say "This is not hard to understand." in the third paragraph.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

StephenB, The process is both guided and unguided. There are parts of it that need guidance and vast amounts that don't. So a TE will say that some parts of it are guided and then the majority is not. Most species on the planet arrive via the unguided process but many do not and need guidance. That is what ID is saying. It is a question of how the guidance takes place. The TE will generally say it takes place in small increments but I don't personally find that reasonable given the evidence. But that is what they say. This is hard to understand. Most species in the world arrive via Darwinian processes. It has been the theme of many of my posts on this site in the last few months and what I have been saying is obvious and not one of the main writers of ID disagree. I believe when the proponents of ID admit this is how things happen, then a true dialog will be able to begin because they will then be dealing with truth. But the reflexively anti Darwin rhetoric gets in the way of truth and getting ID ideas accepted.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Bililiad, you are raising another good point about those who want science to explain everything about life and about design. It can't be done. (Re: And what about agnostics like DaveScot? Isn’t it the case that more religious scientists would support ID if it weren’t an impediment to their scientific careers, as DaveScot said in another thread?) I don't know exactly what DaveScott said, (he doesn't want to debate with me for some reason), but he and others, like MacJohnson, or even the former chief Vatican astromoner father Coyne, are somewhat correct, when they expect science to "explain" things, or some things that are actually scientifically explainable. The problem is how they see science, ID, and their role and power to explain things rationally. While DaveScott may think that ID will explain everything, MacJohnson seems to think that ID will explain nothing, and father Coyne seems to think, if he indeed does, that ID somehow "belittles God’s power and might". ----- (Scientifically, attributing every aspect of biology to the arbitrary design of a divine tinkerer explains as much about biology as attributing the eruption of volcanoes to the anger of the Lava God would explain geology. A theory, by definition, makes predictions that can be tested. Intelligent Design predicts nothing, since it essentially states that every thing is the way it is because God wanted it that way. According to the mindset of ID leaves could have been green or they could have been blue. But God chose green because he was feeling a bit green that day. Or maybe he thought green would really bring out the color of Adam’s eyes; it’s hard to say really. But it definitely had nothing to with the unguided selection of the chlorophyll molecule to best utilize atmospherically filtered sunlight as an adenosine triphosphate producing energy source. Biology (already burdened with the study of the most complex phenomenon known to man) is reduced by Intelligent Design to a meaningless cataloguing service for divine handicrafts. It can no longer seek to understand so much as a sniffle or a dandelion seed without endlessly recycling the same useless answer: must be how God wanted it!) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23404 (Father Coyne... Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.... annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University,... The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. ) http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503rockyr_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Well put StephenB, about Aquinas. Bililiad, Newman's quote is NOT anti ID per se. And you are both correct that seeing design in nature can and does lead some or many people to God, even if it did not convince Newman. (It would be interesting to know why it did not convince Newman then, some 150 years ago, and whether he would be more impressed by science today.) (Re: "Aquinas: “In the end, we know God as unknown.” Would it be too much to expect Johnson to know that Aquinas is talking about God’s attributes, not his existence?") Just to put the famous Newman quote in perspective. This is important, since many get confused about the quote. Even the great scientists-theologians, like father Stanley Jaki, seem to have misunderstood this Newman quote as being against ID! These authors give reasons why and in what context Newman used the apparently anti-design quote: It is therefore not surprising that Newman thought that the greatest proof of God’s existence is the ‘moral proof’, that is to say, conscience itself. ... He even goes so far as to say that, were it not for conscience, he would be an atheist, a pantheist or a polytheist for he sees no reflection of the Creator in this “busy little world.” It is interesting to note the contrast between Newman's view and that of contemporary 'Intelligent design' proponents. Newman states flat out that "I believe in design because I believe in God; not in God because I see design". Perhaps all 'ID' theorists should bear in mind that "The Almighty is something infinitely different from a principle, or a centre of action, or a quality, or a generalisation of phenomena". http://ipsumesse.blogspot.com/2007/08/newman-on-conscience-part-1.html or You (Newman) did not like the traditional approaches to the existence of God? I was never convinced by the more external proofs for God. ‘I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design’. Besides, ‘life is for action’: if we insist on proofs for everything, we will never commit ourselves. http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=68&art=26rockyr_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Stephen B: You said "Further, the author writes, “I do not understand why so many ID proponents are so easily threatened by the idea that man evolved.” But ID allows for evolution, so he clearly is confused about the nature of intelligent design. The issue is, as I pointed out earlier, whether that evolution is directed or non-directed. Rational people make distinctions like that. Irrational people simply use the generic term “evolution,” thinking that they have said something meaningful." Thank you for spelling this out for people. This shows that they spend much of their time reading books like "Scientists Confront Creationism",and nearly the whole book argues the age of the earth haha. I had a college professor tell me he thinks ID is garbage because it believes the earth is 6k years old. Its sad how misinformed people are, over the true arguments!gore_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I thank you for all of well-argued comments on this thread and others.Mapou_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Billiard: Basically, Johnson is providing the same old argument that illogical Christian Darwinists always use. God’s designs appears imperfect, therefore they are not designed. According to the Christian religion, God’s designs were compromised through original sin and nature was adversely affected. But, of course, Christian Darwinists don’t think about that because they are not rational. Again, the author insists that religion boils down to faith. As he puts it, “you believe or you don’t.” But rational people have reasons for believing, irrational people, like the author, simply believe. He adds, “I don’t need God to make sense.” That is total nonsense from a theological perspective. God created a rational universe, rational minds, and a correspondence between the two. Further, the author writes, “I do not understand why so many ID proponents are so easily threatened by the idea that man evolved.” But ID allows for evolution, so he clearly is confused about the nature of intelligent design. The issue is, as I pointed out earlier, whether that evolution is directed or non-directed. Rational people make distinctions like that. Irrational people simply use the generic term “evolution,” thinking that they have said something meaningful. Incredibly, he quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, Mr. Design, to argue against design. This is another indication that he cannot reason in the abstract. He selectively offers this out-of-context quote from Aquinas: “In the end, we know God as unknown.” Would it be too much to expect Johnson to know that Aquinas is talking about God’s attributes, not his existence? To top it all off, he quotes from the anti-Christian Gnostic Gospels (does he know they are the Gnostic Gospels, I doubt it) while ignoring the Gospels themselves. Thus, he puts words in the Apostle Thomas’ mouth that he didn’t say or could not have believed. This is the way Christian Darwinists reason: subordinate God to Darwin at any cost. That is another way of saying that Christian Darwinists don’t reason at all.StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

----Alan writes, "larrynormanfan (me to for 30 years) - check your fondness for the Newman quote with Rom. 1:20 along with StephenB above & bililiad. I suspect you see design in Isaiah 53. Superspiritualism is deceptive and God, yes THE GOD has given us plain and recognizable RECORDS/Revelations in Creation and His Word…don’t you think?" Thank you Alan, I am glad that somebody else gets it.StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply