http://biologos.org/blog en Copyright 2010 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7271 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7271 Gregory Arago Hi Joe, You speak of Galileo, but how about Gutenburg? He seems to have had an enormous impact on the argument you are making, in terms of defending a ‘personal faith’ by reading the Bible in the vernacular as a result of the printing press. Sure, his invention is ‘applied science,’ but it affected the fate of Protestantism of all stripes in a significant way. Pre-Gutenburg, the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’ was a fantasy. Gregory - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7270 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7270 Joe Francis Dear BenYachov, The Galileo affair seems so overblown on many accounts in written legend over the years. However, when you read Galileo’s own writings, he makes his devotion to the church and scriptures very clear, however, his beliefs are very similar to yours, he believes that nature is an important authority and a more reliable authority than scripture itself.  I think he would share your views.  Why then do you distance yourself from his ideas? - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7269 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7269 Joe Francis BenYachov, Thanks for asking Martin that question. Hopefully he will be able to respond. Just curious, where do you insert the 244,000 years in the Gen 5 and 11 geneologies? - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7268 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7268 BenYachov Hey Gregory, >I wonder if you could address this: Can it be disproven that ‘Adam wrote Genesis’? I reply: Well if I believe in both a literal Adam(& I do) & an Old Earth then I believe Adam lived about 250,000 years ago.  I find it hard to believe a text written back then (assuming Adam could develope a written language) survived a quarter of a million years till whenever the flood was & finally to Abraham then Moses.  God could have done that if he wanted too but I likely think God simply revealed this truth to Moses.  I’m a Big believer in Tradition but not at the expense of written revelation.  Logically you can’t disprove Adam wrote genesis but you can’t disprove Richard Dawkins went back in Time with his Time Lady wife to write Genesis as a laugh at our expense.  But I think it quite guite quite unlikely. - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7267 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7267 BenYachov Anyway Martin if you will indulge my curiosity?  Where do you stand on the creation spectrum?  Are you a Fiat Young Earth Creationist?  An Old Earth Progressive Creationist?  No preference?  Do you believe Evolution is completely incompatible, somewhat compatible? etc..  Finally what denomination of Protestant are you?  Calvinist Reform?  Lutheran? etc… I’d like to know.  BTW feel free to quiz me.  Cheers bro & Christ be with you. - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7266 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7266 BenYachov Martin, I think the basic difference between us is I’m a Traditional Catholic & you are a Conservative Protestant(not a terrible thing to be since most Liberals give me a rash).  I outright & without apology reject Sola Scriptura & the teaching of the Reformation as “Traditions of Men” and I hold to the Traditions of the Apostles (2 Thes 3:6) &  as you have said you ” have a different view of the authortative character of tradition.”  So sadly on many points we are likely doomed to disagree.  Plus I’ve been a Catholic Apologist for much of my youth & these days in my middle age I grow weary of having keep fighting what I still believe are the un-biblical errors of the so called Reformers(these Days I find New Atheists to be greater enemies to the Holy Church then our separated brethren ever would or could be). Plus this isn’t really the forum for Reformation Vs Counter-Reformation & I don’t wish to distract from the main theme here which is Genesis, Evolution & such.(continue) - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/a-rejoinder-to-part-ii-of-stephen-c-meyers-response-to-francisco-ayala/#comment-7265 http://biologos.org/blog/a-rejoinder-to-part-ii-of-stephen-c-meyers-response-to-francisco-ayala/#comment-7265 Argon Does anyone else find it odd that Sternberg seems to approach the genome from an almost pure selectionist point of view? - Posted by Argon Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7264 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7264 Argon “So, ironically, as Ryland notes, the IDers, like Dembksi and Behe, and atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, wind up agreeing that without “gaps” in nature belief in an intelligent designer is not justified.” This is why these groups actually love each other. It’s a case of co-dependency.Maybe that’s why they both reserve some of their harshest criticism for those who don’t hold to that core premise. - Posted by Argon Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7263 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7263 Glen Davidson For St. Thomas, the design or purpose of nature refers to the interrelationship of “all things” in the universe, including scientific laws and all inanimate and animate things and their powers, which have their own natures that direct them to certain ends. Thomist or otherwise, I think that this is perhaps the crux of opposition to ID, and their claims that life somehow falls outside of observable physics. Darwin integrated biology causally into the rest of the sciences.  Atheists may be especially pleased at the result.  However, this also agreed with long-standing theistic philosophies as well, with their expectations of a holistic universe/creation (exceptions were often made for the “soul,” however). To science, of course, causal integration makes biology work as a science, while IDist exceptionalism in biology does not.  That is why people who do biology almost never accept ID/creationism (since good biology is taught at Catholic universities, this likely influences Catholic philosophers, too), theists or not. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p - Posted by Glen Davidson Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-origins-and-the-ancient-mind/#comment-7262 http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-origins-and-the-ancient-mind/#comment-7262 Dr B Bob R.: “It’s because they don’t want to admit to them because they think inerrancy is at stake.” I think this hits the nail on the head.  Of course, a particular view of inerrancy may be at stake, but scriptural authority and accuracy or even inerrancy understood more broadly is not.  That is the crux of the argument that needs to be advanced in the more conservative evangelical circles. - Posted by Dr B Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7261 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7261 Joe Francis As we see that the sun and moon are real manifestations of God’s creative acts in space and time on day four of creation, just like the israelites of old there is no reason to think of Adam as anything less than a real physical person created on day 6 of creation….this is just another example of God’s power as he intervenes in the natural world he created…. a message of power over nature that he wanted to demonstrate to a people in the midst of attractive polythiestic cultures.   It is interesting that Augustine may question 6 day creation in his writings but he also opts for a much younger universe, one that is created instantaneously.  So in one way he is a really really young age creationist.  Although I must say you can find quotes by Augustine to support just about any creation view. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7260 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7260 Joe Francis I agree with Martin that the first readers of the Genesis account, would have every reason to take the scriptures at face value and as true historical narrative.  We also get a sense of this when Moses gives a speech to the Israelites before entering the promise land in Deutoronomy.  He knows they need confidence to enter the promise land without him, so he reminds them of what they saw and what they heard God do in the wilderness, i.e., He demonstrated his power in the pillar of fire, the parting of the sea, the provision of manna….etc…  All of these things were physical events which they could experience with their senses and they demonstrate God’s power over nature and his power in relation to the static polygods of the ANE culture around them.  Moses did not have to use symbolism or a statue of God to represent God.  It is apparent that God did these things so that they would believe and understand His power and position as the one true God, in contrast to the inept unacting gods of the surrounding polytheistic ANE cultures. The unparalleled nature of the Genesis account gives the same impresssion…it is a true physical manfestation of God’s power. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/does-intelligent-design-really-explain-a-complex-and-puzzling-world/#comment-7259 http://biologos.org/blog/does-intelligent-design-really-explain-a-complex-and-puzzling-world/#comment-7259 Gregory Arago Nick, you’re missing many points now in your bid to reduce reality to material, physical and natural components. If you could point me to a place (published article or blog post) where you come out against ‘scientism,’ I’d really appreciate it. There simply *is* more out there, in the opinion of the majority of the human beings on the planet than matter and energy alone. One of the key architects of the ‘modern synthesis’, T. Dobzhansky believed in/accepted ‘teleology.’ It is absurd to suggest that ‘teleology’ is ‘dead’ or was ‘killed.’ You’re mixing up ideology with fact, and confusing science with propaganda in saying this. Are you saying “the origin of life/the first species” is *no longer* a mystery?! I don’t find your presuppositions, i.e. those things which are required for actually ‘doing science,’ very convincing. - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7258 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7258 pds RJS, You are right in your first paragraph.  My main concern is with the language “both share a view inconsistent with classical theism” which is quite a strong statement and I think inaccurate: “ID advocates and atheists both share a view inconsistent with classical theism: that an intelligent agent is only required in cases where natural laws and chance cannot account for a phenomenon.” I will wait to see if Frank comments or clarifies. - Posted by pds Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7257 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7257 Gregory Arago It seems like you are proposing a kind of ‘scientism,’ Alan. Please explain if I’ve misunderstood this in your statement defining “reality as that which is or can be amenable to scientific study.” Karl Giberson wrote: “The reality of God implies that the scientific picture is not all there is. Once we know that reality extends beyond science, new questions emerge” (here: http://biologos.org/blog/with-god-all-things-are-possible/) This relates also to Francis Beckwith’s topic because ‘scientism’ is closely related with ‘naturalism,’ especially when people say things like “science *only* studies nature.” It is my experience as a philosopher & sociologist of science, that science studies *more* than *just nature.* Thus, it also seems strange to me that the IDM puts its faith in a *biology first* approach to legitimating ‘intelligent design theory’ as a ‘scientific’ theory. This is why I agree with Beckwith and don’t accept “the Behe/Dembski arguments” or the ‘explanatory filter.’ St. Thomas and the tradition in which he belongs offers more depth, than ‘primarily Protestant’ theories of ‘intelligent design.’ (Yes, Behe is Catholic Christian, and then…) - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7256 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7256 RJS BioLogos, I think pds’s point is that ID advocates would not say that an intelligent agent is *only* required when natural laws and and chance are insufficient, unlike the atheists who do make such a claim. Rather the ID advocate would say that the intelligence seen clearly in the “gaps” is active in everything.  The “either or” view is more common in the general church among those who have not thought about the issues than among top ID spokespersons. But if I have the point wrong he will surely correct me. Nonetheless the general point is certainly seems true - there is an expectation that there must be gaps that are inexplicable by natural laws and chance.  And this expectation in natural theology drives much of the discussion. If there is a designer there will be empirical evidence of design inexplicable by natural means alone. The conclusion of Meyer’s book is that “specified information” (an ill-defined concept) cannot be accounted for by physical and chemical laws alone. Behe and Dembski reach similar conclusions. - Posted by RJS Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7254 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7254 Alan Fox Fair enough, Mike. Just might as well point out that, for me, “undetectable reality” would be an oxymoron, since I define reality as that which is or can be amenable to scientific study via detection, observation, measurement. - Posted by Alan Fox Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7253 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7253 BioLogos Response to pds # 7239 Quoting from the introduction: “Today, Beckwith discusses how arguments by Thomas Aquinas and others led him to see that ID advocates and atheists both share a view inconsistent with classical theism: that an intelligent agent is only required in cases where natural laws and chance cannot account for a phenomenon.” “This is flat wrong.  Does Biologos have any support for this?  Which design proponent has said anything like this?” Our Response: We said that “Beckwith discusses this point…,”  which he does.  Our summary was sent to Dr. Beckwith beforehand to ensure that he felt we accurately summarized his essay. - Posted by BioLogos Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7252 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7252 Mike Gene No, I don’t think that will help us stay close to Francis’s topic.  I can discuss it on my blog, if you want. - Posted by Mike Gene Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/accommodationist-and-proud-of-it-part-ii-a-christian-childhood/#comment-7251 http://biologos.org/blog/accommodationist-and-proud-of-it-part-ii-a-christian-childhood/#comment-7251 WCG “I thought perhaps that as I got older, I might start believing again. I cannot honestly say that if I were on a hijacked plane I would not start praying again,...” Wow, that just seems so strange to me. It would be like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny again. Though I look back on that time with a sort of gentle fondness, it’s really hard to imagine going back to it. We can’t really return to our childhoods, no matter how fondly we may reminisce about that time, can we? Maybe this is particularly hard for me to understand because I don’t remember ever believing in Christianity. I must have, at some early age, I’m sure. But although I clearly remember believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, I had major doubts about God even then (if I can trust my adult memory - I know it can be very fallible). But I’m still wondering what all this is supposed to mean. Many Christians are very nice people. Others are very nasty people. Most are just… people, just average. But what does this have to do with anything? If Ruse has a point, I wish he’d get to it. - Posted by WCG Blog comments 2010-03-20T12:59:59+00:00