Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

American Scientific Affiliation — Whatever happened to its mission?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) is an organization of scientists who are Christians. It has traditionally been strongly pro theistic evolution. Its most prominent member is Francis Collins. I’m also a member.

About three years ago I received the following mass mailing from the ASA’s Jack Haas (I’ve known Jack since 1990 and our exchanges have always been cordial). In this letter he describes how the ASA had, in times past, been concerned to address “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism,” but had recently decided to change its emphasis to combat young-earth creationism.

If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe, the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature. When I received this letter, I was so upset that I decided to let my membership (which I had maintained since the 1980s) lapse. Only at the instance of some fellow ID proponents in the organization did I decide to stay.

I write this post to put into perspective Denyse O’Leary’s recent remarks about the “gutting of a spiritual tradition from within” (see here — the relevance of her remarks to the ASA cannot be missed) and to highlight that with the efforts by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris to ramp up their propaganda for atheism since this letter by Jack Haas was written suggests that the ASA was mistaken in shifting its emphasis away from “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism.”

Lay Education Committee of the
American Scientific Affiliation
PO Box 668 ~ 55 Market Street
Ipswich, MA 01938

November 2003

Greetings,

I am writing to report the progress of the Lay Education Committee (LEC) on the “educational package for the person in the pew designed to promote a better understanding of the place of science within a Christian worldview.”

ASA’s original concern “for the waning faith of modern youth subjected to the sweeping tide of scientific materialism” was set aside for other interests as the times changed and the organization grew larger. As a result, our direct impact on the local church has been minimal.

At the 2000 Annual Meeting at Gordon College, some members discussed the difficulties that evangelicals have with questions deemed to have both scientific and biblical input. Later, the ASA office received a letter and a substantial gift from one participant challenging us to reach out to the church laity. He noted:

[BEGIN BLOCKQUOTE]The young-earth message has bitten deeply into the evangelical culture, and people trust this message. What will it take to show people believably that the young-earth view is not the only possible one, without undermining the Christianity or sincerity of those that hold that position?[END BLOCKQUOTE]

The ASA Council directed the formation of a committee to respond to the challenge. The LEC first met at the 2001 Annual Meeting. It was decided to develop an educational package that could be adapted for church adults and high school students, Christian schools and home schools. The package will consist of a 300-page book, 60-minute DVD and teaching/study guide. At this point, much of the book has been completed and we are starting work on the DVD and teaching/study guide. Publication is expected by mid-2005 unless we run into a financial roadblock.

Much of the project is expected to be funded by foundation grants. We have already received encouraging responses. The total budget will exceed $250,000 which includes production and marketing costs. Many of us have given large blocks of time in planning, writing and management of this project. Now we need your financial help! We need your gifts both to accomplish the project and to indicate to foundations our commitment to it. At the same time, I want to express my concern that you not forget the need to support the general budget of the ASA. Executive Director Don Munro reports that member contributions are significantly down this year. Any gifts to the LEC project should be in addition to your usual ASA contribution.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions via snip@comcast.net. Thank you for hearing me out — and for your support. Please make out your check to the ASA marked as LEC project.

Jack Haas
For the LEC Committee

Comments
Atom said: "As a high schooler who was a TE (aren’t all brainwashed public school kids?) I used to rely on evolutionary explanations to justify my own wicked behavior. I am not saying this is some “slippery slope” where it all leads; I am saying this is what happened to me. I would think that my behavior was ok because it helped my ancestors survive better, which is what the system was made to do, right? I was only fulfilling my evolutionary purpose." Yes, the heart is desperately wicked and who can understand it? I also understand and fully appreciate your concern. To help allay your appropriate fears I will end with the conclusion of ASA member Terry Gray's critique of irreducible complexity, showing our common ground. Note: this was written a while ago about the time that Darwin's Black Box came out. Terry's prediction of short-lived gains appear to be on target. http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html "The resurgence of the intelligent design argument may give a temporary respite to the eroding influence of theism in the sciences, but the gains will be short-lived. Although many in the design crowd are already cheering the demise of evolutionary theory, I think that there have been spectacular gains in nearly every area of biology and key new developments in the areas of complexity theory, developmental biology, and paleontology. These design arguments will give the general Christian public much ammunition to fight their misguided battles against evolutionary biology. Real gains in the fight against an atheistic naturalistic worldview will come only when we see that the battle is not concerning the details of some theory in biology, but is concerning the deeply rooted anti-Christian religious convictions that take the glorious truths of God's creation and twist them into an anti-Christian apologetic. Christians need to see the revelation of our Creator Lord in every square inch of reality; we must counter unbelievers' denial of that revelation with the Biblical response that their denial is rooted in their suppression of deeply-rooted enmity with God. This is the basis for a truly theistic science; a science that sees the glory of God's creative and providential activity in every detail."rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
I apparently messed up posting for Ted. He wants to focus on these four paragraphs which are quotes of Bill Demski. I would like to note in passing that why would good Christians accept the slander of atheists that we just want the "respectability" of full-blooded Darwinism? What we want is the "respectability" of integrity in science, following the evidence wherever it lies, even if it makes our rhetorical case more difficult. That integrity is at the core of what the ASA is all about. Now Bill Dembski: As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism. What theistic evolution does is take the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptize it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, accepting as it does only purposeless, naturalistic, material processes for the origin and development of life. As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is an oxymoron, something like "purposeful purposelessness." If God purposely created life through the means proposed by Darwin, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without any purpose. According to the Darwinian picture, the natural world provides no clue that a purposeful God created life. For all we can tell, our appearance on planet earth is an accident. If it were all to happen again, we wouldn't be here. No, the heavens do not declare the glory of God, and no, God's invisible attributes are not clearly seen from God's creation. This is the upshot of theistic evolution as the design theorists construe it. Design theorists find the "theism" in theistic evolution superfluous. Theistic evolution at best includes God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic account of life. As such, theistic evolution violates Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a regulative principle for how scientists are supposed to do their science. According to this principle, superfluous entities are to be rigorously excised from science. Thus, since God is an unnecessary rider in our understanding of the natural world, theistic evolution ought to dispense with all talk of God outright and get rid of the useless adjective "theistic." It's for failing to take Occam's razor seriously that the Darwinist establishment despises (yes I say despises) theistic evolution. They view theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant, who desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist, but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists (Richard Dawkins is a case in point).rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
rblinne, also: As a high schooler who was a TE (aren't all brainwashed public school kids?) I used to rely on evolutionary explanations to justify my own wicked behavior. I am not saying this is some "slippery slope" where it all leads; I am saying this is what happened to me. I would think that my behavior was ok because it helped my ancestors survive better, which is what the system was made to do, right? I was only fulfilling my evolutionary purpose. Sadly, some have never grown out of that stage of moral reasoning.Atom
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
rblinne If Blindwatchmaker Darwinism is true, then we are here because of a series of lucky accidents, culled by our own struggle to reproduce. We finally got here and then a god would pull along side us and say "BTW, I am your creator and you should honor me as such." Well, excuse me, but I would think in that case we did all the hard work... It would boil down to this, for me at least: if I wasn't created the way G-d claims to have created me (with direct intention, not as the result of a series of genetic coin tosses) then he is untrustworthy. And if he can't intervene in Nature (it is "off limits"), then how can I rely on him to protect or prosper me? How can I rely on him to resurrect me, as that would cause him to get his "hands dirty"? Yes, he could resurrect me through secondary agents (Angels, for example), but in that case we would still have to allow him to physically intervene in history using things other than the laws of Physics and chance. If I open the door for miracles (which as a Messianic believer I emphatically do) then I can't limit what intervention is off-limits. And if all signs point to the origin of bio-information as a product of intelligence, above and beyond chance and necessity, then I have no reason to blindly assume "There MUST be a chance/law explanation." If all signs point to intelligence, then that is the best inference.Atom
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
I find the following analogy apropos to the TE position and the real world. In 1902 the volcano Mount Pelée was rumbling on the island of Martinique and the people wanted to leave the area but the local council prevented them from leaving until they had a meeting about what to do. Everyone died except one person when the volcano erupted including the entire council. We see our children and our friends being led astray by a false ideology based on bogus science and the TE's ask us to sit and discuss theology while they support the bogus science and discuss some convoluted belief system that are friends and children cannot comprehend. Look at all of Europe if you want to see what lays ahead for the US. While TE's fiddle, the city is burning. I am sorry but the ID people think they have the water to put out the fire. And they are being prevented from using the water by TE's as well as many others. If the TE solution worked we would be completely supportive but we are witnessing an ineffectual response to a major problem. It is a bogus science that is leading our children astray not improper religious understanding.jerry
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Janice said: "It’s heartwarming to see that some people are concerned that she had to struggle so hard to retain her faith. However, I do find it strange that Christian people who accept the evolutionary scenario for the origin and diversification of life will express such concern for the struggles of a highly educated, mature person but express no concern for mere children who lose their faith because they’ve been taught to believe that evolution can account for the existence of life in all its diversity and that, therefore, God is a superfluous idea. How many of those are there? Millions, I’d think. Probably hundreds, or thousands, of millions over the last 50 - 100 years." What you do with that thinking is to cut off the argument at the knees by denying if evolution as defined as descent with modification is true then God is superfluous. Because if it really is true that there is descent with modification then millions of people are merely one modus ponens away from atheism. That's my beef with ID is by it's not denying that diabolical false inference it is in essence agreeing with Richard Dawkins.rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Ted Davis asked me to post this: I respond to this comment by nullasalus: "Honestly, even if TEs disagree with ID, I can’t understand why the two camps don’t try to put aside their admittedly big differences and unite against atheistic materialism. It’s one of the reasons that I find myself more sympathetic to ID on a day to day basis - at least ID proponents engage and argue against those philosophies. For TEs, they just don’t seem to make the radar. " *** Ted replies. For a couple of years, I tried to persuade my friends in the ID camp to take a friendlier posture toward the kinds of TE positions found within the ASA (and there are various ones). Mike Behe is IMO a TE--he accepts UCD and has no theological objections to the type of position held by Ken Miller, Bob Russell, and John Polkinghorne--that God can work subtly through quantum processes to bring about specific results in the history of life. See, e.g., Mike's comments on pp. 357-8 of "Debating Design," ed Dembski & Ruse. But this, apparently, is not good enough for Bill and for many other IDs. Let me quote from Bill's essay, "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design," as follows: The whole essay is here http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html I like the fact that Bill tells people what he thinks, as clearly as he can--I try to do the same myself. If Bill disagrees with TE for the reasons stated, I have no quarrel with him for speaking his mind. Given his unquestioned status as a leader of the ID movement, however, and given the tone and content of the passage above (which I think fairly represents his views, and those of some other ID leaders), it shouldn't surprise anyone on his blog why it's been so hard for well intentioned people from both camps (TE and ID) to come together. Bill just doesn't think that TE has any cash value: it's an irrelevant embarrassment at best and a spineless jellyfish at worst. This view is widely shared among "camp followers" of ID, though it is not universally shared even among fellows of TDI. Thus, when some TEs articulate their view that inferences to purpose/design involve more than science alone--that metaphysics and theology are part of the inferential nexus--they are often seen as attacking ID and/or abetting scientific materialism, even in cases when they are simply stating honestly and fairly what they believe, and why. We are very often seen as part of the problem, not part of the answer, to scientific materialism. It is all well and good to raise objections to various forms of TE--I do this often myself--but it is another thing entirely to define TE in such a way that TEs are outside the "Big Tent" of ID, and then complain about an inability to unite against what genuinely is a common enemy. I spent I don't know how many hours, trying to get many of my friends in the ID camp to see the cavern that separates a Polkinghorne from a Peacocke (it's called a high view of divine transcendence and of Christology, and it is a cavern), but (judging from the posts they sent me) many had a very hard time seeing this, I believe b/c they did not have much familiarity with either Polkinghorne or Peacocke, to say nothing of many other thinkers who write about science and theology rather than simply ID vs "Darwinism." ID does its best to keep theology to one side, so this is not all that surprising--though it is still quite frustrating. I keep coming back to this, with which I close. TE is not a "slam dunk" against Dawkins and company. It's too much a faith-based position for Bill and many other IDs. Their cultural agenda, clearly indicated in the private "wedge" document and numerous public writings (such as the promotional puff that Bill wrote for "Darwin's Nemesis," which made direct reference to the culture wars and the Dover trial), seems to require a "slam dunk," and that is what ID represents to many Christians. The subtler responses of Polkinghorne, McGrath, Barr, and several other theologically orthodox TEs are just not tough enough, in Bill's opinion. Indeed, he seems almost to loathe them, unless I am badly misreading him.rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
EircB--great post!!Rude
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
George Murphy @ 47
The “designer” has to be God: ETs or other natural agencies would just push the supposed problems of the origins of CSI & irreucible complexity back a step & would solve nothing
AngryOldFatMan @ 50
Francis Crick would disagree with you, and he’s nowhere near religious.
Right—for the PanSpermists life is a Skyhook a la Dennett. So in the end I think the argument will boil down to philosophical and scientific arguments for the soul. Otherwise where does it end? Did mechanism create mechanism create mechanism? Is it mechanism all the way down—an infinite regress of chance and necessity mechanism?Rude
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
George Murphy: There are scientists more competent than I, a physicist, to show its weaknesses on that score & they have done so. (Again I mention Ken Miller.)
I would have to agree with geoffrobinson about Miller. When I looked at Finding Darwin's God, I found that I could not think of any other book I had read on any topic that had done a worse job of misrepresenting the positions it was supposedly debunking. Ken Miller has accumulated a track record of getting it wrong, and in persisting in repeating the misrepresentations even after having been corrected. Here is a list of examples. I would advise against trusting Ken Miller's portrayal of ID.
George : To be clear - my objection is not that it’s theologically motivated but that it’s bad theology which its proponents shy away from discussing.
Since you believe the ID inference leads to "bad theology" I have a couple questions for you. Dr. Behe originally held the TE position (what you appear to consider "good" theology), and had no theological need to change. But the scientific evidence persuaded him otherwise. What do you expect a Christian scientist to do when the scientific evidence runs against TE and the idea that unguided nature has been endowed to manage on its own? Should they suppress their discoveries or alter their science as needed to sustain "good" theology? Should theological concerns trump what the evidence says? Or should scientists such as Behe follow the scientific evidence where it takes them (and let theology take care of itself, cf. geoffrobinson )? By faulting ID for its theological implications, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that you believe theology should have veto control over how science is done.ericB
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Rockyr:
Nullasalus is right, TE is very diverse, but what unites them is their belief or philosophy — they believe that God somehow used natural evolution to accomplish His creation.
The key here is “natural evolution”—TE’s maintain that the science is all on the side of Richard Dawkins but that theist’s are capable of noble feelings. Here, let’s let in some clarity via Jay Richards:
This issue is just not that complicated, despite the sociological pressures to keep the fog machines going at all times. Either (some or all) of the history and complexity of life are the product of design or they’re not. Either that design is discernible or it’s not. Evolution is either purely random or it’s not. Not even God can direct an undirected process. Complicated discussions about the definition of ‘philosophy,’ ‘reason,’ and ‘science’ are dull blades. The reader is thus left to vaguely believe something that I’m sure is not true: that the Pope endorses a two-truths view, according to which Darwinism works as ‘science’ (narrowly defined) but theological types get to talk about God as long as they call it philosophy and promise not to make trouble for the Darwinists.
Rude
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
George Murphy @ 47 The “designer” has to be God: ETs or other natural agencies would just push the supposed problems of the origins of CSI & irreucible complexity back a step & would solve nothing Francis Crick would disagree with you, and he's nowhere near religious.angryoldfatman
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
George Murphy, People have been debating religion and theology for several thousand years and this is what you want to discuss her? Look at the world around you today and the history of discussing religion. What are the chances that something meaningful will get done? Your request is not practical on that basis. One of the ways we can have fruitful discussions here is keeping religion to a minimum. The religious spectrum of beliefs is quite varied here though a large percentage are YEC's. You should find another forum for that than here. I have made the statement before that we want to discuss science and all TE's want to do is discuss religion. Your persistence just confirms this observation. You say you are a physicist, and that is also my educational background in college though I never used it in any way in a career. But I am able to follow most arguments in biology and understand the scientific method. You should have no problem either. It is not that difficult to follow Behe's arguments and Ken Miller's replies. Anyone with a sense of logic can do so. It is also possible to follow Ken Miller's testimony in the Dover trial. Supposedly the judge was doing that. We would be interested in why you believe in the gradualist approach to evolution if you cannot follow the science? The reasons we do not accept a gradualist approach is that we can follow the science and see major flaws in it. That is what drove us to that conclusion, not some perverse desire to flaunt the scientific community. There are many, many of us who have no religious reasons to doubt the prevailing science. Why do we do so? Are we stupid? I doubt it. We also read a fair amount so we are aware of the arguments. If you feel uncomfortable debating science, then find a colleague who is and have them come here and observe the dialog that takes place. Most here are interested in learning. I would think those who defend TE would have a similar interest.jerry
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
I'm not sure anyone around here has been impressed with Ken Miller's critique. Most arguments against irreducible complexity boil down to "Darwin of the Gaps" reasoning. Assuming naturalistic processes thereby we have proof that there must have been a naturalistic process that made something. That is a philosophical and theological shortcoming in my book.geoffrobinson
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
ericB & jerry: It's a nice rhetorical trick to imagine that I'm confusing 2 different issues but I'm not. I've never said that ID makes no scientific claims (almost entirely negative) or that science is irrelevant to the discussions of it. There are scientists more competent than I, a physicist, to show its weaknesses on that score & they have done so. (Again I mention Ken Miller.) What I am focusing on is the religious aspect of ID. There is no question that it has that dimension: I've already cited a couple of things that show that. The "designer" has to be God: ETs or other natural agencies would just push the supposed problems of the origins of CSI & irreucible complexity back a step & would solve nothing, & I don't think anyone is really interested in the creation of life by angels. If IDers don't want to talk about the theological issues, that's their prerogative. But it won't keep people like myself who do care from continuing to point out IDs theological shortcomings.George Murphy
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Designed Jacob, Welllll. . . ok. But I've seen what happens when he takes issue with someone on this blog--and I don't want to be on the receiving end! :Dsajones97
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Sajones, "Your condescending tone leads me to believe Mr. Dembski has hit a nerve." Call him "bloke", call him "William" or even "Billy", but don't call him "mister" :D.Designed Jacob
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
rblinne @ 31 wrote:
I find it utterly ironic that the thread Denyse misquoted was started by a young geologist who found the ASA after almost losing her faith reading Lee Strobel’s the Case for Creation and finding his utterly weak arguments slaughtered by infidels.org. This is at the core of many of our concerns.
This is part of what the young geologist wrote:
one of the books I started reading was Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator. Only into Chap. 3, [Doubts about Darwinism - An Interview with Jonathan Wells] I started to get the sense that it didn't feel as rigorous as it should, so I went on-line to find a critique of the book. I ended up at infidel.org ... and from there, I started looking at atheists' arguments more broadly. I had something of a "crisis of faith" (read: complete meltdown) if you will, and since then, I've been obsessively gobbling down every (intelligent) book/website out there discussing Christianity and Atheism. I've essentially been living in the verses "I believe, help my unbelief!" and "for we walk by faith, not by sight" for the past 2 months as I've tried to come to a new understanding of my faith in light of some of the atheists' arguments
It seems to me that this person's "crisis of faith" was caused by, "looking at atheists' arguments more broadly," when she was unprepared to counter those arguments, not specifically by Lee Strobel's book. It's heartwarming to see that some people are concerned that she had to struggle so hard to retain her faith. However, I do find it strange that Christian people who accept the evolutionary scenario for the origin and diversification of life will express such concern for the struggles of a highly educated, mature person but express no concern for mere children who lose their faith because they've been taught to believe that evolution can account for the existence of life in all its diversity and that, therefore, God is a superfluous idea. How many of those are there? Millions, I'd think. Probably hundreds, or thousands, of millions over the last 50 - 100 years. I was one of them. At 15, trusting that my biology teacher knew what she was talking about and was not lying, and without the benefit of having grown up within a family of Christians, I decided atheism was the only rational theological position to take. And now, considering how that decision changed my life and how its consequences still reverberate more than 40 years later, I think of millstones and depths of seas. I'd be angry at you if I didn't now understand that all things work together for good ... to them who are the called. Interested persons can find the infidels.org article on Lee Strobel's book here.Janice
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Jerry: There is no conspiracy. The issue about YE is similar to evolution. You have a reigning scientific paradigm - evolution theory. And every observation is "selected" to confirm this theory, ignoring or "de-selecting" all disconfirming observations. The same can happen in OE theory. I treat OE and Old Universe as separate issue. In that sense, and also because reasons given earlier (Flood, death before sin), I am NOT a YEC. But I am open to any age for the Earth. The philosophical assumption behind all dating technologies are the same - uniformitarianism. Remember the Y2K dates in computers? The problem arose because of the same principle used in old computers and old software. If one clock is wrong, all the clocks using the same principle are wrong for the same reason, and all the clocks have to be fixed.MatthewTan
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
rblinne, Your condescending tone leads me to believe Mr. Dembski has hit a nerve. Cherry-picking one obscure case of an alleged scientist who almost lost her faith via scientific arguments does not address the core of his, and my, point. You say you are "loyal" opponents. Setting yourselves up, formally, against the YEC crowd can only serve to divide. No-one has a problem with sincere disagreements. However, according to the correspondence quoted above, the ASA has decided to make a public display of the disagreement, rather than focusing on the data and letting the results speak for themselves (as I perceive the ID camp to be doing). In this way ID communicates fundamental distinction without alienation. If the geologist you mention had a faith weak enough to be shaken to its very foundations by the rantings of a few athiests and the materialistic reasoning of men, then the real question is where she has placed her faith, isn't it? Where do you suggest? The ASA? Any Christian who has pitched his/her tent upon the wisdom of men, anywhere but Christ, will eventually encounter a crisis. Be assured of that. Concerning the young geologist you pulled back from the very jaws of hell: what does she believe of the Christ? Is he the Son of God? What of the Cross? What would infidels.org say to those claims? How would their irresistable logic concerning the above affect her? Your response here demonstrates a fundamental naivete (or conceit), as you seem to believe the ASA can set itself up as a bulwark against weak faith. There was much left unsaid in the introductory paragraph that Mr. Dembski gave to the mail he received above. And there is more if you will take the time to ponder what he wrote. Far from being quick to accuse, you simply didn't take the time to unpack it. Yours in Christ, Scottsajones97
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
George Murphy, from your comments 'You say, “ID is about science and not theology.” Nonsense! While there may be some ID proponents who are interested only in scientific issues, the ID movement as a whole is motivated by essentially religious concerns.' Maybe you can explain to us here what these religious concerns are. I certainly cannot tell you and I read this blog most days. Yes there is a concern that science today is promoting atheism. That is a common concern amongst a lot of the people here. If that is what this site is accused of, then most here would plead guilty. Go and tell the world that the ID people believe in God and are concerned that a bogus science is undermining that belief. That would be the fairest assessment I can think of. There is a common agreement that ID does not necessarily point to Christianity or any other religious view point, but how it that theological? It just says those who believe in ID say that the evidence supports that some aspects of the world were designed? Those who say that the laws of physics such as relativity does not necessarily point to Christianity are not making a theological statement. They are just saying that under certain conditions classical mechanics does not work. How are the two different? If you want to say ID is not science, then fine but be fair in how you assess each one who supports it on a scientific basis. The quickest way to see if you are sincere is to assess Behe's IC concept and how it was supposedly refuted. We believe there has never been an honest refutation of his concepts, only rhetoric. Are you or someone you know willing to have a debate with people here on that issue? The only stipulation should be that it is wholly on science and that theology never enters the discussion.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Matthew Tan, Radiometric dating is just one of several things that argue against a young earth. There are some 40 isotopes that can be used and they are consistent. My favorite for showing the earth is not young is the mid Atlantic ridge and the alternating magnetic strips. They can actually measure each year's change and estimate when South American and Africa were together, about 100 million years ago. The almost perfect fit is still there today for all to see. Also the forming of volcano islands such as in Hawaii and French Polynesia where the older islands are always to the northwest and the younger islands near the hot spot. Go to the big Island and then to Kauai and see if 6000 years can make that difference since they have been observing both islands for a few hundred years and have seen no difference in each of them take place in that time. They have archaeological evidence from Sumer as early as 5000 BC and there were writings of flood myths before the time of the bible was written. The list goes on and on and it is not a conspiracy. It would be a big deal if some scientist showed the estimates were off by 500,000 years let alone 4 billion years but none have appeared. The argument over the universe was between 10 and 20 billion years and they then settled on 14 billion years. OK so they may be off a couple billion years, no big deal. You would have to dismantle nearly every science to come to a 6000 year old earth.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
George Murphy:... You say, “ID is about science and not theology.” Nonsense! While there may be some ID proponents who are interested only in scientific issues, the ID movement as a whoole is motivated by essentially religious concerns. ...
Sorry George, but you are confusing two different issues. If every person with religious concerns were to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, intelligence would still be required to create language and symbolically encoded information. The problem of language-based, information-rich life was recognized completely apart from religious concerns, and it it will take something other than an unguided process to solve it. The fact that many scientists involved with ID (or many people in general) have religious thoughts and concerns is true, but that is beside the scientific issue. There is nothing wrong, for example, with Dembski having an opinion about the origin of life that goes beyond what the science of ID can indicate. He and others have been repeatedly clear that they are incorporating considerations beyond science to reach those additional conclusions. There is nothing disingenuous about the fact that one's views are (hopefully) larger than what science alone can tell us.ericB
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
All: Young Earth Science Jerry: Biogeography I am open-minded and I read all points of views. YEC have good scientific reasons to espouse Young Earth view, and good philosophical reasons to reject radiometric datings. There is a very technical book by Professor Robert V. Gentry, _Creation's Tiny Mystery_ which offers evidence for instant creation. It has been ignored by mainstream scientists because of its unorthodox view. *** From Amazon.com Book Review: "Gentry was published in such prestigeous publications as Science and Nature - until the inescapable conclusions of his facts were discovered by the establishment. He also goes into how he was suppressed from further research and his part in the infamous Scopes trial. " *** I refer you all also to Marvin Lubenow's book, _Bones of Contention: Creationists' Assessment of Human Fossils_. This book is primarily about (negative) evidence for human evolution. There is a chapter titled "The Dating Game". There was a piece of human fossil that underwent radiometric date revisions about 14 times over 10 over years (if I remember correctly), and some of these dated the human fossil to the dinosaur's era. In the end, the date was settled, not by independent radiometric dating, but by reference to another fossil - a pig fossil. Geologists use fossils to date the rocks, and use rocks to date the fossils. Circular reasoning. Why the need to re-date the fossil so many times? Because the fossil does not fit into the human evolution time-table. After reading this book, I no longer have faith in radiometric datings. Because of this, I am open to YEC. (But I reject their thesis that there was no physical death before Adam's sin. And I am not convinced that there was a Global Flood). Next, about biogeography (present and past), the marsupials and placentals, etc. in Australia, etc. Read this article, Prediction 9: Present Biogeography, and Prediction 10: Past Biogeography. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1c.asp#pred9MatthewTan
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Shouldn't critiques of ID be based on science and philosophy, not whether or not you like the theology, esp. since ID isn't a theology? If the main critique of ID is that people don't like the idea of a Designer or a Designer which interacts, isn't that just tough luck?geoffrobinson
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
"Australia has no placenta mammals except for bats according to Falk and they can fly which is why they could get there." --Jerry There's also the Australian dingo (wild dog), but they are thought to have come over with humans several thousand years ago (prehistorically). The time frame leads to a conundrum for conservationists when trying to determine its protection status. How long does a species have to reside in a geographic location to be considered indigenous?great_ape
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Jerry: 1) You're right, there are different varieties of TE (an unfortunate term BTW but we see to be stuck with it). This shouldn't be surprising since there are different theologies. 2) If you want to know my own approach to TE you can start with chapter 16 in Keith Miller's book. I'd be happy to give you some other online references - as well as to some which sketch problems that I see with ID. But don't waste your time if you have no interest in theology because that's what I'm doing. You get a quite distorted view of the position of any TE writer if you mutilate it by ignoring the T & paying attention only to the E. 3) You say, "ID is about science and not theology." Nonsense! While there may be some ID proponents who are interested only in scientific issues, the ID movement as a whoole is motivated by essentially religious concerns. Good grief - read the paragraph at the top of this page which talks about the UD position in terms of worldviews. Or what about Dembski's statement in Touchstone a few years ago that that “intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory”? The claim that ID is just about science is useful when proponents are trying to get their ideas into public school curricula or but it's highly disingenuous. To be clear - my objection is not that it's theologically motivated but that it's bad theology which its proponents shy away from discussing.George Murphy
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
jerry:... However, my theology is not affected in any way whether God did it in steps or set a master plan in motion. The world and life is so obviously designed.
Well said. And it's good that you don't feel your theology is at stake or threatened either way. That frees you on the scientific questions to follow the evidence whereever it leads, and that is what I believe is the best way to approach science.ericB
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
rockyr: Sajones, It seem that the majority of intellectuals today, including the pope and many Catholics, are TE believers.
It does seem that Catholics have had favorable leanings in the direction of TE, and Behe himself started from that position (until the scientific evidence knocked it out of him). But I think it would be only fair to recognize that even John Paul II’s "acceptance" of evolution was qualified. He firmly and clearly rejected the idea that the human mind/soul could be the product of natural processes as being incompatible with the truth about man. This is also the point at which Francis Collins, in his book The Language of God, waffles in his TE position. At times he writes as though it is only a matter of time before science unravels how humanity came to be what it is. At other times he argues that there is something fundamentally different about humans that science cannot explain and that it is evidence for God's involvment. But turn some more pages and he is warning on other topics against God-of-the-gaps arguments and that we should not suppose that science won't figure out the nasty gaps. Without pushing a side on this one, I would point out that his fence sitting does not work. Either human nature/behavior is or is not within the reach of science to understand. If it is, using human behavior, etc. as evidence for God falls apart as the very kind of God-of-the-gaps argument he accuses ID of using. On the other hand, if human nature has a nonphysical aspect that places humans beyond reduction to something scientific materialism can explain, then all his fine sounding ideas about peace in our time and truce with the scientific materialists crashes on the rocks of hard reality.ericB
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
ericB, you said: "ID doesn’t reach its conclusion for theological reasons. It infers the need for intelligent intervention only in those cases where the evidence indicates that unguided processes cannot accomplish the task. That is what supports the inference." and "The plain facts are that we have no scientific (or theological) basis for concluding that He has done so." I agree and I am probably a poor one to explain theistic evolution other than it is what I believed only a few years ago based on what I thought was settled science. However, my theology is not affected in any way whether God did it in steps or set a master plan in motion. The world and life is so obviously designed.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply