Howard Van Till’s journey from Calvinism into freethought

_{William Dembski

July 26, 2006

Religion, Science}

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

Questions: (1) Leaving aside Calvinism, is Howard Van Till a Christian at all? Would he even accept that designation? (2) Given that he has veered so far from Calvin College’s statement of faith, is it legitimate for him to maintain his formal affiliation with the school as “professor emeritus”?Ã‚Â Are professors emeritus held to the same standards as nonretired faculty?Ã‚Â

FROM CALVINISM TO FREETHOUGHT: The Road Less Traveled
by Howard J. Van Till

Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Emeritus
Calvin College
Presented 5/24/2006 for the Freethought Association of West Michigan
Lightly edited 5/26/2006

Precis: Born into a Calvinist family, shaped by a Calvinist catechism training, educated
in the Calvinist private school system, and nurtured by a community that prized its
Calvinist systematic theology, I was a Calvinist through and through. For 31 years my
teaching career was deeply rooted in the Calvinism I had inherited from my community.
During most of that time it was a fruitful and satisfying experience. Nonetheless,
stimulated in part by the manner in which some members of that community responded to
my efforts to practice what I had learned from my best teachers, I eventually felt the need
to extend my intellectual exploration into philosophical territories far outside the one
provided by Calvinism. Did I complete the lengthy journey from Calvinism to
Freethought? The listener will be the judge.

MORE

Comments

Fross: "The classic ID camp assumes acts of intervention in what would have otherwise been a physical chain of cause and effect events."
Given an instance of CSI, [there are] but two possibilities: either the CSI was always present or it was inserted. Intelligent design theorists differ about which of these two possibilities obtains for the universe taken as a whole. On the one hand are those... who see all the CSI of the universe present at its start. On the other hand are those... who see CSI emerging in discrete steps, with no evident informational precursors, and thus through discrete insertions over time. This debate is not new -- German teleomechanists and British natural theologians engaged in much the same debate, with the Germans arguing that teleology was intrinsic to the world, the British arguing that it was extrinsic. However this debate gets resolved, CSI is an empirically detectable entity that transcends natural causes.
-- William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design (1999), p. 171.j_{July 27, 2006
July
07
Jul
27
27
2006
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Miller's God may well have done all the designing before the Big Bang. God may also tinker over time. We are not the ones who determine how the Designer is allowed to act. I think any Designer who could program me as an outcome into the Big Bang, will not behave as I tell Him to. The Christian Bible seems to present a redemption history both of development over time, and intermittent tinkering, with ultimate incarnation. It is more likely then, from a Christian point of view that the Designer will create over time, and will be hands on in a perceptable way at times. This does not "make God behave" in a certain way, it may just describe how He who Is who He Is chooses to behave.idnet.com.au_{July 27, 2006
July
07
Jul
27
27
2006
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

It has been said several times in other threads, that the Ken Miller concept of design (life is inevitable from the design of matter and the universe) is one that is consistent with the omnificent God of traditional theology. At least it is consistent with my ideas of God growing up. However, Darwin introduced this inconvenient thing called science to question that view and his view has been championed by legions of his followers with the same amount of enthusiasm as any religious zealots in history. However, ID has also used science to more closely look at Darwin's assumptions and interpretations and reinterpreted the evidence, generally much more accurately. I could have lived with Ken Miller's concept and in fact I did for most of my life. It just so happens I had a science background and started looking at the evidence when I realized some were questioning it. Unfortunately the evidence does not point to an inevitable unfolding of life and intelligence as a direct consequence of the laws of nature. If it did, I would willingly sign up. I not sure that the thread that Ken Miller pointed to would have been any different given his actual comments. The only thing I question is does Ken Miller really think his actual comments make a difference or is he just trying to discredit Bill Dembski by showing the post differed from his actual words. In other words is Ken Miller being disingenuous again? I realize that this is completely off topic but it may deserve its own thread since someone brought it up. Just what does Ken Miller believe and what are his motives?jerry_{July 27, 2006
July
07
Jul
27
27
2006
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Van Till quotes "Freethought encourages the application of reason and science and discourages any recourse to supernatural explanations." Why is it considered "freeethought" if it feels the need to "discourage" certain thoughts? I might write as a "convert" to ID, almost exactly in the words of Van Till "As I reflect on what happened to me I have begun to wonder why it took me so long to feel the need to question the received view. Why was I willing at that time to stay in such a system and to work within the bounds of dogmas and creeds crafted a century and a half ago? Was I dull of mind? Was my brain turned off?" Darwinism fits very well with Van Till's definition "A folk-science is a set of beliefs about the natural world, beliefs that need not be derived from, or even consistent with, the natural sciences, beliefs whose primary function is to provide comfort and reassurance that the rest of oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worldview is OK." Read Richard Dawkins if you doubt it. Rather than be said of ID, if Van Till's piece were written by an ID supporter it may well have read "Similarly, the concept of Darwinian Evolution functions today as the folk-science of a large portion of the broader scientific population in North America. A fundamental tenet of Darwinism's folk-science is that the system of natural causes provides the formational capabilities needed for assembling certain complex biotic structures, such as the bacterial flagellum. If natural causes are adequate, then the form-imposing intervention of some non-natural Intelligent Designer is unnecessary. And if supernatural (power over nature) intervention was not necessary for the formation of rotary motors on E. coli bacteria, then there is nothing standing in the way of Darwinists maintaining their conviction that natural laws could have performed all of the other so called supernatural acts portrayed in the Bible." It is amazing how few words we need to change to turn a shameless Polemic from one side to the other. If indeed Van Till has given up on Jesus, it would seem to reflect a deeper honesty if he would say it clearly, so that Christian readers would be appropriately guarded in their reading of him, and perhaps he would also sell less books. Maybe that is why he does not make it clear.idnet.com.au_{July 27, 2006
July
07
Jul
27
27
2006
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

bfast, Basically I see it like this. Law camp and contingency camp both assume a physical unbroken chain of cause and effect events from the Big bang til now. One end of the spectrum believes it was all planned, the other side of the spectrum says it was unplanned, and in the middle you have those who understand the impossible task of verifying it either way. (i think most people fall in the middle ground, Ken Miller included) So I would suggest a 4th category which is that middle category. (i'm not witty enough to name it) The classic ID camp assumes acts of intervention in what would have otherwise been a physical chain of cause and effect events. (i always use the analogy that the universe was created, but if left on its own, it would pull to the right, so an act of intervention is sometimes needed to pull it back to the left). The analogy isn't meant to compare it to bad design, but to point out that the design of the universe, while including features that support life, does not include any features to bring forth life or diversity on its own.Fross_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

Here are the URLs which were in angle brackets and did not appear: Van Till ... had abandoned "traditional supernaturalism" http://www.stnews.org/rlr-318.htm including "supernaturalism's portrait of `God'" http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/?sid=53&id=321, having previously received in late 2003 the NCSE's "Friend of Darwin Award for 2002" http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/sepoct03.pdf#4 . ... see George Hunter's book, "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587430118/104-4590083-7879969. Stephen E. Jones http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/senojes_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Oh this reminds me of our good friend Ken Miller. It seems that he was a bit upset at a thread on this website, and responded here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/dembski/ I am puzzled, however. Miller hardly seems to believe in contingency. After all he says:
They think constant intervention on the part of the creator is required to bring about the first life, the first living cell, the first chordate, the first insect, the first bird. In other words, the designer or the creator had to keep tinkering with it.
(emphasis mine.) It would seem to me that Miller and Denton are about half a breath apart in their understanding of how we came to be. Denton, however, seems to think that his view is an ID view. I agree with Denton, whether the designer designed everything before the big bang happened, or whether the designer acted as an agent along the way does not seem to me to be the boundary between ID and evolution, in both cases we are the product of a designer's design. I see three very clear camps: the contingency camp -- NDE, the agency camp -- classic ID, and the law camp -- the "God is such a good designer that he doesn't need to interfere via agency" variant of ID. I am actually quite attracted by the "law" camp. However, from what I have seen, if the law camp is to rise, it better get serious about finding more laws. IMHO, RM+NS is not by any means adequate to account for life as we know it.bFast_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

I had added links in angle brackets but they did not display. Here they are without brackets: "... I was not surprised when he later `came out' in 2004 saying that he had abandoned "traditional supernaturalism" http://www.stnews.org/rlr-318.htm including "supernaturalism's portrait of `God'" http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/?sid=53&id=321 having previously received in late 2003 the NCSE's "Friend of Darwin Award for 2002" http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/sepoct03.pdf#4 . ... see George Hunter's book, "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587430118/104-4590083-7879969 . Stephen E. Jones http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/senojes_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

I debated Van Till on the Calvin Reflector in the early 1990s and from that experience, quite frankly, I did not then regard him as a fellow Christian. So I was not surprised when he later `came out' in 2004 saying that he had abandoned "traditional supernaturalism" including "supernaturalism's portrait of `God'" , having previously received in late 2003 the NCSE's "Friend of Darwin Award for 2002" . Van Till is, in my considered opinion (like other extreme Theistic Evolutionists who seem to be more against ID, and any thought of God intervening supernaturally in the world, than they are against atheism) perhaps unwittingly, a Gnostic (see George Hunter's book, "Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil" . Stephen E. Jones http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/senojes_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

John, Consider yourself in the company of friends. Even in the company of friends we sometimes hold our tongue. I want your voice to be heard here at Uncommon Descent, John, your work is too important to be silenced by indiscretion. I'm thrilled a biologist of 50 years like you is with us..... There are plenty of places on the internet outside of Uncommon Descent where you can be less reserved. You may speak your mind on the other weblogs I'm a part of and where I am a moderator. For the sake of promoting your work and the names of those you revere like Berg and de Grasse, I would plead a little moderation. You're one of the few voices to keep their memory alive. So I would be sad to see you hasten your departure for our sake, your sake, and for the memory of the fine work of others like Leo Berg. Salscordova_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

I want John Davison back! Who'll second me?jaredl_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

I am afraid to say anything for fear of being banned once again. "Discretion is the better part of valour." ShakespeareJohn A. Davison_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Deuce: "HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something from several years ago, when Van Till first went apostate..." Wow, that illustrates his current theological position much more clearly than the article heading this discussion. I agree with you that for one to be Christian, one must recognize Christ's work on the cross. To do so, one must recognize the existance of supernatural. This, of course, does not mean that God could not have produced a set of laws which have the natural result of producing man, and all other biodiversity. I do, therefore, think that it is possible to be a Christian and a theistic evolutionist. I don't know that one can realistically be a Christian and deny the supernatural nature of God himself.bFast_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

David, I completely agree with you. I believe the difference is symantics. This is why I said, "In the one (Calvinism), the dignity of man is maintained because he is made in the image of God and still has a will that still makes decisions freely (though it only chooses evil decisions since it is in bondage)." It's the difference between Luther using the phrase "the bondage of the will" and Augustine's "the free-will in captivity". The difference is wording (and definitions). The bigger point that should be noted is that, though Van Till calls himself a "freethinker", the logical conclusion of his belief system (metaphysical materialism) is that his thinking has already been pre-determined according to random chemical reactions acting through the necessity of natural law. That is, he's a robot.Ryan_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

There's nothing wrong with examining our beliefs. But let's be honest. Sometimes we chuck beliefs for subconscious reasons. If I'm a materialist I can live my life any way I want. If I don't convert, that person X won't marry me. Who knows the heart of man? It is deceptive and wicked beyond all measure. Sound familiar? People go from A to B and B to A. But we need to be debating what's true not why someone believes what they do. I can't look in your heart and I don't want to get pulled into such a debate. Your proud Calvinist signing out.geoffrobinson_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Leary wrote:
Calvinism and Darwinism do have one important thing in common: Both make the question of free will problematic.
Ryan wrote:
Calvinism states that the human race lost its *free* will as a result of original sin
Both of these statements are incorrect. Calvinism states that you are born of woman with free will, you are (hopefully) reborn with the same free will, and if so will freely choose God with that same free will, and ultimately enter heaven with, you got it, that same free will. It's your desires, according to Calvinism, that are corrupted by the fall, not your free will. You (freely) don't choose God prior to rebirth because you don't want Him. Nobody seeks God, scripture tells us. After rebirth, you do (freely) choose God because you've been given a new heart of flesh which has a desire for God. I know this post isn't about the merits of Calvinism, but incorrect statements regarding its beliefs should be subject to correction.David Heddle_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Salvador, I appreciate and agree with the sentiment in your latest post. Even though I'm a skeptic of biological ID and young-earth creationism, I find that your rhetoric and approach to these issues are refreshing, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions.Paul Brand_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

bfast: "Though Christians certainly can be accused of not scrutinizing what they believe, I hardly think that they have a corner on that particular fault. The ID community is, at its core, asking the scientific community to scrutinize some basic tenets of what it believes, especially with reguards to philisophical naturalism. In general, the scientific community has responded by refusing to scrutinize what they believe." I agree with you, and I think both sides need to be more open to scrutiny. (There are also individuals on both sides who are open.) I'm often disappointed with how little honest discussion there is on the intersection of faith and science. It sometimes seems to me that the folk mentality is to pick one side and defend it. I don't want to approach the debate coming from one side firing at the other.Paul Brand_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Rude, "Somebody needs to write a book on how the theologians paved the way for the Deism that so easily faded into agnosticism and atheism." Someone already has, and he's an ID guy too: "Darwin's God" by Cornelius HunterRyan_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Hi, bFast,
Deuce, do you have more information about Howard Van TillÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“ODoRÃ¢â‚¬Âthan is presented in this article or do you just have a judgemental spirit.
Here's something from several years ago, when Van Till first went apostate: http://www.futurechurch.org.nz/article.php?article_id=200 What I said above is pretty harsh, but I think it's a pretty fair assessment of process theology in general. They refer to "God" (or "The Sacred" since Van Till says he doesn't like to use the word "God" anymore) as some kind of vague "force" that is part of nature rather than the Creator of it, but this "force" isn't a personal agent that actually acts purposefully or intentionally ("coercively" according to Van Till). Of course, even hardcore atheists believe that there are awesome, impersonal "forces" and stuff too. There's not really any content to the position, just vague, lofty-sounding abuse of language. It really just boils down to glossing an atheistic view of reality with religious-sounding terminology to evoke a religious feeling. Of course, I could use the word "God" (or "The Sacred" or whatever) to refer to anything. I could say that "God" is just a teacup, and I could even be very reverential towards that teacup, but that wouldn't make the underlying position any more theistic.Deuce_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Paul Brand: "Many Christians donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t scrutinize what they believe and how they came to believe it." Though Christians certainly can be accused of not scrutinizing what they believe, I hardly think that they have a corner on that particular fault. The ID community is, at its core, asking the scientific community to scrutinize some basic tenets of what it believes, especially with reguards to philisophical naturalism. In general, the scientific community has responded by refusing to scrutinize what they believe.bFast_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Denyse is right: Calvinism and Darwinism both do make the question of free will problematic. The one emphasizes determinism, the other randomness, both at the expence of agency. Somebody needs to write a book on how the theologians paved the way for the Deism that so easily faded into agnosticism and atheism. A couple years ago Robert Pennock presented his loony ID put-down at a small private college near here. Various faculty lingered around afterwards, including some from a conservative Christian college nearby. It was interesting how the Christian faculty defended Darwin even more vigorously than the secular faculty. My suspicion is that Christian schools are caught between wannabe secular respectability, theological constructs that cannot be challenged, and an anti-intellectual populism (Jesus in my heart not my head). Therefore our best hope and the best place to be right now is Intelligent Design. ID has pin-pointed the fundamental question: Are we designed? All else is commentary.Rude_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Thank you for pointing that out to us Bill. I never thought highly of Van Til's writings in term of science, philosophy, or theology. It doesn't surprise me he has basically come out of the closet. I could sense it for a long time..... In contrast, one who didn't sign his name to a creed, who is somewhat friendly to ID, but who would strike me as an open-minded truly freethinking man is David Berlinski! This is what I like about the ID community, we come here of our own free will, we are not under obligation to sign a creed. We gather under the big tent and explore things. Our only commitment is to explore truth, not to prove some pre-conception. Truth should be able to stand on it's own. We may have our personal beliefs, and even make a profession of faith as to what those beleifs are. But if reality is ultimately in line with our profession of faith, there will eventually be a reconciliation, and there is thus no need for policing thought. It is refreshing to see many ID-sympathetic organizations are organized as secular entities, not religous ones. I have sympathy for the younger generation of freethinkers because a fraction of them are not committed to dogmas of atheism either. Several college-age freethinkers supported pro-ID efforts because they thought the issue was too important to be shackled by dogma on either side. The issues should be in their mind put forward for examination and exploration. They find the theology free ID message compelling. Salvadorscordova_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

I've read most of Van Till's paper, and I think I can identify with a lot of what he writes. Many Christians don't scrutinize what they believe and how they came to believe it. I turned to evangelicalism around 7 years ago, and much of my faith was founded upon the writings of Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and others. They certainly made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian. To some extent, I was protective of my certainty, and I limited most of my exposure of various controversial issues to my beloved Christian brothers and sisters. In recent times, I've decided to expose myself to other ideas, and to allow my beliefs to be more closely scrutinized. The result wasn't an abdonment of Christianity, or evangelicalism, but I did have to alter some of what I believed, stuff that ended up not corresponding with reality. Anyway, I do think that though there are Christians who have thought through why they believe in special young earth creation, or intelligent design, there are many who do seem to believe based on what Van Till calls "folk-science". And I think it is important to note that "folk science" can be prevalent with people on the pro-Darwin side, and the pro-ID side. (I think Van Till may even agree with me, that a person's "ODOR" can create a bias towards Darwinian evolution, and that person would hold strong to those beliefs, even if they are shown to be lacking). Folk science can exist, even if what a person believes really is in actuality the truth. I enjoyed the article, and I think it offers some good questions that should be asked.Paul Brand_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Calvinism maintains that man's freewill is curtailed in one important way: man cannot choose God. Rather, God chooses man. That's not a dismissal of freewill entirely. > DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s corrosive principles laid the foundation for the murder... Arguing about the corrosive effects of evolution is a bit different than arguing about the truth or falseness of evolution itself. It could very well be that evolution is true, but that people have applied it erroneously. Similarly, one might point to the Crusades and the Inquisition as an example of Christianity being misapplied. Further, while naturalistic evolution seems to hint at an atheistic universe, it actually cannot show that God does not exist. Consider this situation for comparison: the ancient Greeks believed that the Sun was actually one of the gods racing a chariot across the sky. Some intelligent Greeks began to question that notion, began to think that the Sun was just an object in the sky. Anyone believing such a notion might think, "gee, the Sun isn't a god? There is no god. I am entitled to act immorally." Of course, such a notion is laughable - the existence of the Sun as a god or as an inanimate object does not really tell us anything about the existence of God or the importance of acting morally. Similarly with naturalistic evolution. Though, I can understand why the ancient Greeks might to preseve such falsehood for religious and moral reasons. It's important not to fall into the same trap here of arguing that we should preserve some scientific beliefs because they touch on certain religious ideas. Intead, ideas of ID/evolution and god-chariot-sun / inanimate-object-sun should stand on their scientific merits, otherwise we risk being like the Greeks who exiled the people who claimed that the sun was just an object in the sky. > Non-theistic Darwinism reduces man to chemical reactions, or to paraphrase Dawkins (I think it was Dawkins), Ã¢â‚¬Å“You are your genes.Ã¢â‚¬Â I'm unsure about the context in which this was uttered. Was this said in the context of free will? Because it could apply, quite accurately, in a variety of contexts. In any case, I do believe that genes influence my behavior. Whether I get angry easily may be partially genetic. How smart I am is partially genetically determined (I'm not talking specifically about differences between humans here, but more about the intelligence differences between humans and animals, and animals versus other animals). In other words, I'm smarter than a dog and I'm capable of using language because of my genetics. Whether I get pleasure from high-risk bahavior may also be genetic. This does not preclude free-will. And evolution cannot dismiss free-will even if it can claim that genes influence our behavior in various ways. My own belief is that genes influence our behavior the same way that a friend might - it says, "no, that's too scary" or "that sounds fun, let's do it!" It influences, but does not make the final decision.BC_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Deuce: "At this point, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think it makes sense call him a theist, or even a deist, much less a Christian." Deuce, do you have more information about Howard Van Till's "ODoR"than is presented in this article or do you just have a judgemental spirit. Please consider Revelation 12:10 where the devil is refered to as "the accuser of the bretheren". Further, please consider Matthew 13:24-30, the parable of the wheat and the tares. Does this parable not teach that it is not our job to be declaring the hearts of others? This entire thread seems to be missing the point of Howard Van Till's document. He is discussing the need for each of us to examine our belief structures, to understand why we believe what we believe. It is only in such an examination that we can get past a simple emotional response and to a reasoned position. In this I believe that he is right. In addition, he is suggesting that we recognize that the other person's experience may lead them to a different position than my own; we must find a way to understand others rather than condemning them. Again, in this I find him to be correct. Now, Dr. Van Till has some harsh words to say about ID. He refers to ID as a "folk science". To an extent I would agree with him. However, I would add that NDE is also VERY MUCH a folk-science -- even in the scientific community. NDE is given lip service in a lot of cases where that lip service is not merited. The lip service that it receives sounds very much like "heil Hitler" or "the Lord be praised." It is a mantra, an acknowledgement of submission to the recognized authority. It is an ODoR. As far as Dr. Van Till's assertion "If natural causes are inadequate, then the form-imposing intervention of some non-natural Intelligent Designer must have been essential (wink, wink, we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say who the Designer is, but you know who we mean)" goes, well, he is correct. This is the view of many evangeical Christians. Does this permit the conclusion that ID is therefore somehow merely a religious perspective, or that teaching ID is paramount to teaching a particular religion? NO! Just because I, as an evangelical Christian may "wink wink", that doesn't mean that many other IDers are anything but Christian, are anything but religious. How large must the community of people who are not part of a particular religion and who accept an assertion be before the assertion is no longer associated with the religion in question. If this and similar forums are any example, I would say that at least 25% of the IDers are not particularly "Christian." Further, it seems that the most qualified IDers, those with degrees in the biologies, are less likely to be Christian than those of us who are not so qualified. As such, I find the painting of ID as a fundimentally "Christian" "folk-science" is, well, the excrement of the male bovine.bFast_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

"Calvinism and Darwinism do have one important thing in common: Both make the question of free will problematic." There's a major difference between the two: Calvinism states that the human race lost its *free* will as a result of original sin and now we only have a will in bondage (or if you prefer Augustine: a "free will in captivity"). Non-theistic Darwinism reduces man to chemical reactions, or to paraphrase Dawkins (I think it was Dawkins), "You are your genes." In the one (Calvinism), the dignity of man is maintained because he is made in the image of God and still has a will that still makes decisions freely (though it only chooses evil decisions since it is in bondage). Since the other (materialistic Darwinism) reduces the universe to complete diversity (with no unifying "one" to give anything meaning or relationship), man (if he can be called that at all) is reduced to being as valuable as the atoms he is composed of. So really, if he's right, Van Till isn't a freethinker. He's a "gene-thinker".Ryan_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

At this point, I don't think it makes sense call him a theist, or even a deist, much less a Christian. As near as I can tell, Van Till now just uses theological language to refer to blind, deterministic or chance processes. Maybe "atheist who talks funny" is the best description.Deuce_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Calvinism and Darwinism do have one important thing in common: Both make the question of free will problematic. If the human being is entirely the result of natural selection acting on random mutations away from a lemur-like ancestor, the origin of consciousness and free will are actually unclear. Darwinists have put no small amount of effort into denying that these elements of human nature even exist, as will be shown in Mario Beauregard\'s and my forthcoming book (Harper 2007). For an ID-based biology, there is no problem because information is seen as top down rather than bottom up. Thus matter does not create or organize mind, rather the other way around. but to the Darwinist, as I have learned from experience, it is a constant itching sore. Has anyone written a book on the sheer number of intellectuals who lost their traditional faith as a result of becoming Darwinists? I keep running into that again and again in my reading.O\'Leary_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

In Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity Nancy Pearcey explores the historical causes for the full range of world views with comparison to Christianity. 2004 Crossway Books ISBN 1-58134-458-9. She includes examples similar to Van Till's. Particularly startling is the corrosive impact of Darwin. e.g. Ch 8 Darwins of the Mind p 227: She describes reading a biography of Joseph Stalin
. . .when the young Stalin was a seminary student, studying to become a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church. As one of his friends relates, they were discussing religion: "Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "'You know, tehy are fooling us, there is no God ...' "I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. "How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed. "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, an al this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said. "'What book is that?' I enquired. "'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me." We all know what happened after that: Having become an atheist, Stalin went on to murder literally millions of his own people in his attempt to construct an officially atheistic state.
Between Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc. Darwin's corrosive principles laid the foundation for the murder of more than 125 million people in the 20th century. About three times more than the 38 million killed in all the wars of the 20th century! This is detailed in: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, et al. Harvard University Press (October 1999)ISBN: 0674076087 Pearcey goes on to describe the impact of Darwin on John Dewey, William James, Charles Sanders Pierce, and Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr., causing them to loose their faith and develop philosophical pragmatism etc. It is sad to see another fall victim. "Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 7:20.DLH_{July 26, 2006
July
07
Jul
26
26
2006
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply