Apparently, he has missed the point. When reading books like Dembski’s Mere Creation, creationists must realize that what they are reading IS about evolutionary theory, just a theistic one. These theorists, like Del Ratcsh, for example, do not argue the evidence for evolution, they are arguing for a mysterious designer behind it all (in the “initiating conditions,” Ratsch says, which basically is what TE’s do.
What’s the point of making God so small He is all but pushed out of His own creation? Does that serve your purpose, Alex?
So, my point stands. When arguing for ID theory, one is essentially arguing for us to believe Theistic Evolution, because the theorists who are making these argument are by and large, Theistic Evolutionists.
This is not to say that the basic premise of ID theory, that that the universe, on a basic level, exhibits characteristics of design, it does. But from the Methodological Naturalist’s point of view, that says nothing in favor of a creationist viewpoint, in fact, Dembski argues rather fervently that ID does not specify who or what the Creator may be, in fact, he argues quite strenuously that ID is not an attempt to argue for a particular creationist view.
But taken in context, the science that they are arguing is clearly methodological naturalist science. They are merely making a statement that methodological materialism is not supported by the science itself, and I would agree that this is true, but so would most reasonable scientists who are not militant atheists.
This does nothing to help the creationist viewpoint, from a traditional Biblicalstandpoint.
To quote myself:
“Yes, as the ID theorists like to point out, there are gaps in the evolutionary record such as an obvious gap between the non-living chemical and the living biological world, that leave room for theistic answers. However, and they are not shy in pointing this out, their view could as much allow for aliens seeding the earth from far away galaxies or other dimensions (Francis Crick’s panspermia), as it could allow for the Biblical account for creation. How is that leading us to a traditional view? If all we do is push back the question of origins to the infinite past we gain nothing out of the debate. Even a theological illiterate can understand that there is an impossible gap between what Moses wrote and what modern science is claiming about history. And Ockham’s Razor suggests that if the Bible’s testimony about the beginning, the Flood, Moses and Israel, and the Resurrection are wrong or poetically skewed, then it probably all just a big fat myth. Can the Gospel be served in this kind of intellectual atmosphere?”
There is a better way to argue the Biblical creation, and the theistic model.
Essentially, because ID proponents use the model incorrectly, to attack methodological naturalism, especially on the issue of public education, without providing an equally clear and productive scientific model in which to do science, the public has a wise fear of it.
If we can show the public that we in fact are not obscurantists, that we understand the issues in context, and show them that we can be responsible in the use of scientific methodology, we can demand a fairer representation in the public schools. As it stands, right now Native American and Meso-American creationism gets more equal time than we do.
Now, let me ask you this question:
“Why would you not want your children to become experts in the evolutionary theory, and be the ones on the cutting edge of this science, if for no other reason than to understand it better than their philosophical counterparts?”
That’s one of the challenges you need to answer, since apparently you are ignoring the other challenge, which is to explain why you are promoting the views of people you claim to be against, namely TE’s, because there is hardly a whisker of difference between a Behe, a Dembski, and a run of the mill Evolutionist.
[[Apparently, he has missed the point. When reading books like Dembski’s Mere Creation, creationists must realize that what they are reading IS about evolutionary theory, just a theistic one]]
By “He” I assume you mean me? If so I absolutely do not agree with that. I read science sites all the time and they obviously contain Macroevolutionary hypothesis yet I absolutelky do NOT subscribe to ANY of their assumptions when I look for JUST the scientific FACTS. (Note- my Caps aren’t meant as shouting, but just to stress the key words)
[[These theorists, like Del Ratcsh, for example, do not argue the evidence for evolution, they are arguing for a mysterious designer behind it all (in the “initiating conditions,” Ratsch says, which basically is what TE’s do.]]
That is fine- Ratcsh can BELIEVE anythign he wants- I am ONLY itnerested in the scientific FACTS. Obviously people like Demski and Ratcsh are going to mix in their own PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS amoung the SCIENTIFIC FACTS, that is unaviodable unfortunately, but that does NOT mean that I have to subscribe to ANY of their UNSUPPORTED BELIEFS that lie outside of the strict SCIENTIFIC FACTS that they present.
Look- these people are quite smart, and their research is invaluable, but just because they’re smart, that doesn’t prevent them from steping outside of science and believing somethign that amounts to nothign more than a scientifically impossible pipedream.
[[What’s the point of making God so small He is all but pushed out of His own creation? Does that serve your purpose, Alex?]]
Well Alice, noone is making God small- infact, it bolsters the idea that God created each species uniquely and fully by pointing out His fingerprints in Nature’s designs. Science can be used to confirm Intelligentce, and This itnelligence, in my personal opinion, is God, which I think Science will discover the more we dig biologically (Not that I think God will ever be ‘discovered’ using science, but I beleive enough evidence will emerge that will point very strongly to a highly intelligent Causation of Design..
[[So, my point stands. When arguing for ID theory, one is essentially arguing for us to believe Theistic Evolution, because the theorists who are making these argument are by and large, Theistic Evolutionists.]]
Egads- Sorry you beleive that, but quite frankly, you HAVE to ignore the points I’ve made that refute what you are saying. When I argue ID theory, I present JUST the facts- it’s only when people get defensive that the discussions veere from FACTS and start including personal OPINIONS and acusations.
There is simply no logical reason for you to assume a Christian MUST accept everythign someone beleives- it’s illogical to assume everyone MUST take an “All or Nothing” approach to issues. Look- the scientific FACTS are all that I’m itnerested in.
[[Dembski argues rather fervently that ID does not specify who or what the Creator may be, in fact, he argues quite strenuously that ID is not an attempt to argue for a particular creationist view.]]
I’m fully aware of Demski’s OPINIONS- I’m not itnerested in his OPINIONS OUTSIDE of the STRICT SCIENCE that he presents. He is an incredibly smart person, and he applies that gift to SCIENCE, and produces some astonishing material- that’s ALL I’m itnerested in, because he presents ideas that can be scientifically tested and applied. His PERSONAL VIEWS OUTSIDE of hte STRICT SCIENCE that he presents are quite frankly meaningless because he can produce NO evidence to support any idea of Naturalistic Macroevolution.
[[There is a better way to argue the Biblical creation, and the theistic model.]]
I dissagree- There is enough science to support IC and to highly suggest a strong probability that the fingerprints of a Designer can be seen.
[[Essentially, because ID proponents use the model incorrectly, to attack methodological naturalism, especially on the issue of public education, without providing an equally clear and productive scientific model in which to do science, the public has a wise fear of it.]]
Nope- I dissagree totally- It is hte SCIENCE ITSELF that refutes Macroevolution- The ID scientist simply points to the FACTS in the already established science that rip Macroeovlution to shreds. It is NOT the ID’ist who “Attacks” Science, it it science’s own fault that their hypothesis contains such impossible FACTS. ID simply exposes what Science refuses to acknowledge or make public. That isn’t “Attacking”, it is exposing what is already present so that the people have ALL the information and NOT just the seemingly favorable evidence that is presented in such a way as to APPEAR to be scientifically valid- With a little investigation, and not just blind acceptance, one can start to uncover the myriad of problems- the myriad biological impossibilities, the myriad law violating principles of Macroevolution, and one can start to see it for the smoke and mirrors that it really is.
Suppose a huge company created a drug that helped with Asthma, but they his evidence from the public that the drug causes tumors on the kidneys- Would it be a case of “Attacking” to dig into the company., to cut through all the hyped ‘positive evidneces’ and to discover and reveal the negatives of the company? Woudl a person need to come up with an alternative method of investigation in order for negative evidences to be taken seriously? No! Of Course Not!
Suppose hte company, who is heavily invested in the drug, launched a campaign against the investigators, and accused them “Attacking” the company. Is that a logical response? No! Of Course Not! - it’s an attempt to cover up KNOWN PROBLEMS and to represent the investigators as ‘vindictive and religious’ in their pursuit of hte truth-
[[If we can show the public that we in fact are not obscurantists, that we understand the issues in context, and show them that we can be responsible in the use of scientific methodology, we can demand a fairer representation in the public schools.]]
ID was presented fairly and clearly- it was an activist Judge that DENIED the FACTS and rested his case on his own personal BIAS about somethign that is more a religion than ID ever thought of being - ie: Macroevolution! Look- it’s not our fault that the dogma of Macroevolution has been so heavily invested in that the ‘company’ can’t let go of it.
[[“Why would you not want your children to become experts in the evolutionary theory, and be the ones on the cutting edge of this science, if for no other reason than to understand it better than their philosophical counterparts?”]]
Why? Because it is a LIE- plain and simple. I want my children to become experts in the problems with Macroevolution so that they can tell others about the LIE that is being foisted on us all!
Why would I want My children being indoctrinated in somethign that is biologicically impossible? Why woudl I want my children being taught ONLY what Macroevolutionists WANT them to be taught? Why woudl I want my children sheltered from being taught the PROBLEMS with Macroevolution? I want My kids to learn ALL the science- NOT just the science that is presented in it’s current form! I want my children learning that Macroevolution is IMPOSSIBLE, and that Macroevolution violates the natural law not just in a few moot instances, but at EVERY SINGLE step of the imaginary process. It is a FACT that mutations can NOT produce Macroevolution. Mutations can NOT itnroduce NEW information- and Macroevolution certainly can NOT create IC in a stepwise process.
Why woudl I want my children learnign a LIE?
[[which is to explain why you are promoting the views of people you claim to be against, namely TE’s, because there is hardly a whisker of difference between a Behe, a Dembski, and a run of the mill Evolutionist.]]
You must not be paying attention- nowhere am I promoting their VIEWS- I promote the SCIENCE that they present that support the idea of ID and IC- period-
I could just as well ask you why you promote slavery by paying people with money that has “In God We Trust” on it when those words were enacted by slave owning founding fathers? Or why you wuold quote a founding father when in defense of one of our liberties when, according to your opinion, being ‘all or nothing’, then you would thusly be ‘promoting’ their personal beleifs that slavery wasn’t wrong!
You’ve been writing for 28 years and noone has called you on this silly mistaken opinion of yours? Wow!