Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Response to Crandaddy’s comment

This is a quick response to Crandaddy’s comment on yesterday’s post.

Might it ever have occurred to you that possibly, maybe there might just be something else to ID besides dishonest Christian apologists trying to smuggle creationism into schools?
Yes, I’ve written many times that ID has an important role, as an (honest) apologetic. Science in general and especially its great mysteries and potential discontinuities make for fantastic apologetics, but it must be done honestly. Since no ID scientist has demonstrated that a flagellum (to take an example--and it doesn't really matter if it's the right example) cannot have evolved, it can be presented as (at most, and very tentatively) a candidate for a design smoking gun, but it must be done so with full disclosure.

You comment, by the way, contains, in my opinion, an implied and incorrect shift of my target from where it has been (the methods of the ID movement and the incompetent leadership of the ID movement) onto where it never has been (ID proper).

Might the thought ever have entered your mind that perhaps as some wild, far-fetched outside logical possibility ID is just a little bit more than simply an apology for the Christian God?
That it might possibly be? Why yes, I’ve written many times that while it is presently not science, should ID scientists actually do something to put it on firm scientific footing I’d be delighted. If Dembski actually uses his mathematics to demonstrate design in nature, I’ll write a glorious testimony to his efforts on these pages.

Isn't it possible--just possible--that all-encompassing scientific materialism robs us of an important explanatory tool--namely agency?
Of course, by design it doesn’t invoke an agency. But naturally you are free to invoke an agent when science cannot offer an explanation. (Or even when it does.) You cannot, however, describe such activities as science. You must have read at least a couple of the gazillion times I have written that cosmological fine tuning can only be explained by parallel universes or God. But even I would agree that if parallel universes are ruled out, it doesn’t “prove” God, it strengthens the apologetic argument.

Could it be that there exist phenomena in the observable natural world which can serve as evidence for the Christian God as merely one possible candidate among perhaps many others and that one may believe this as an epistemological consequence of reasoning while at the same time believing that the Christian God is the actual perpetrator as a position of metaphysical faith without being a deceiving, conniving theocrat?
Again, have I not provided many examples of fine tuning which I believe constitute physical, scientific evidence of God’s creation? Is it hard to see that while I believe that, at the same time I recognize that my conclusion, though based on scientific evidence, is not science?

Do you honestly not find it the least bit funny or odd or incomplete that the quote explaining naturalism which you provided describes the "supernatural" as being not observable or subjectable to experimentation and yet conveniently provides no explanation of what objects are designated as supernatural?
No, I don’t. If you re-read the post, you’ll note that I do not write, anywhere, that scientific materialism is all-encompassing. I wrote: scientific materialism not a threat to Christianity, and I gave my reasons. I could have added “and in fact I think it is a very good thing, a God given endeavor.” Scientific materialism (science, if you will) is to general revelation what theology is to special revelation. And science will and does glorify God even without asserting (that the oh-so-obvious-to-us conclusion of a designer) that ID is science, ought to be taught as science, and only a conspiracy is preventing it from assuming its proper position in the science community. In cosmology I see God, and I like to tell my fellow believers and any unbelievers who care to listen why I see God. I believe that glorifies God. I don’t care at all that many people do not see God, there’s nothing I can do about that, and I don’t feel put upon that I can’t get my views into a science curriculum.

Why don't you ease up on the conspiracy mongering and try a little critical thinking for a change, huh?
I could always use more critical thinking, no argument there.

If it is the duty of a Christian to decry the apparent foolishness of his brother in Christ, then consider me your whistle blower.
I consider myself accountable to all Christians, so please continue to let me know when you think I am in error.

No comments:

Post a Comment