Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- From: "Frank J" <fnci@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Sep 2005 09:30:10 -0700
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Lantog wrote:
> > I've been following the whole ID thing for over a decade now and I
> > hate to say it but I don't think biologists have done a great job in
> > combating ID. There is overwhelming evidence a thousand times over to
> > essentially prove evolution and demolish ID but no one person seems to
> > have the expertise in the diverse areas required to do it. I wrote a
> > query letter and outline for an article along these lines to Natural
> > History. They're "interested" but I missed the deadline for they're
> > special issue...but I may get to do it in the future.
> > If anyone disagrees with my contention I offer Antony Flew as
> > evidence. Flew is a well regarded philosopher from England who made a
> > name for himself based on rigorous arguments in favor of atheism and
> > opposed to religion. In the last year Flew announced, at the age of
> > 81(?), that hes converted to deism. He claims it was the compelling
> > arguments of the IDers (and the anthropic principle) that converted
> > him!! Now granted his brain is probably a bit addled, but I'm sure hes
> > still a very smart guy. Hes also obviously not reading the primary
> > scientific literature..but still! Where are the simple, concise
> > refutations to the IDers that any nonscientist should be able to
> > recite??!!
> > RodW Lantog@xxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Somehow, the ID movement is tapping into a very deep rooted need in
> many human beings. If you were somehow to wipe out all the main
> practicioners of the current ID movement, you would only find other
> people who would quickly take their place.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that it will be easy to find people
who can spin it as well as Johnson, Dembski and Behe.
> Another problem you guys
> face is that many of the people in the ID movement are very genuine in
> their beliefs - you might think that they are dishones charlatans and
> distort the evidence, but they genuinely don't see themselves in that
> light - and indeed many of them come from academic backgrounds -
> mathematicians, doctors, nurses, physicists, etc, etc.
I'm sure that most of them are genuine in their beliefs in God (as are
many (most?) "evolutionists"). Most chief IDers may be even genuine in
their beliefs that they caught the designer red-handed. And unlike most
ID critics, I take them at they word that they are unsure whether the
designer they caught is God. But after 8 years of reading their
carefully chosen words, I don't think that there is one in the top few
dozen IDers who isn't personally convinced that, design or not, it's
still evolution. And that all of the mutually contradictory creationist
accounts are absolute nonsense. But who misrepresent it anyway.
Now if you mean the "rank and file," then I do think that most honestly
think that it's not evolution, but some "independent abiogenesis"
scenario. But that's because the scammers are careful to avoid
detailing the mutually contradictory alternatives and revealing their
flaws.
>
> I stated in another thread the possibility that God "planted" the
> evidence just to throw you guys off track. But I am now thinking that
> it is more likely that God sent these fundamentalist christian types
> who refuse to believe your arguments no matter what evidence you throw
> at them, and he did this just to frustrate you, just so that you might
> come to realise which truth is the more important (e.g. salvation) as
> opposed to lesser truths (e.g. how the universe was created).
Who is "you"? We theists already believe that ultimate truths are more
important. But the old "problems are opportunities" paradox comes to
mind. Perhaps God sent pseudoscientists of all stripes - astrologers,
"UFOlogists," spoon benders, etc. to keep us on our toes.
>
> Or to put it another way, reading the above account, it wasn't more
> clear to me what bothered you more - that Anthony Flew momentarily was
> taken in by an ID argument, or that he renounced his atheist position.
Sadly, many Flew critics were more bothered by the latter. But not me.
My disappointment is that he based his conversion on "god-of-the-gaps"
nonsense. Contrast Flew with Kenneth Miller, who is an "interactive"
theist. One who actually criticized deism in "Finding Darwin's God."
But you won't hear IDers dropping his name at every opportunity.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I think that you will only make
> progress in presenting your Darwinian position if you try to distance
> yourself from the other agenda - that is to persuade people against a
> theist position.
Agree 100%
> In another thread I stated clearly that I believe in
> intelligent design, but I couldn't see how my notion of intelligent
> design conflicted with evolution.
As I said before, don't confuse ID in the general sense with the ID
(god-of-the-gaps. misrepresent evolution, etc.) *strategy*.
>
> Why not try the approach of trying to meld evolution with a theistic
> approach? I know some of you have tried, but the form of Christianity
> that seems to be presented by the pro-evolutionist often comes across
> as a neutered version of Christianity, with much of the power of the
> gospel taken out of it.
Have you read John Haught? He is a Christian theologian who embraces
evolution. I can't vouch for the "gospel" but he does resonate with
Christians.
>
> As I stated earlier, I can now see that one can adopt a pro-evolution
> position and see it as an endorsement of a true Biblical position.
> Indeed by adopting such an approach, one can actually get to a place of
> greater understanding of the truths of Christianity. I know that there
> are some people who will just stay pig headed, but I have to tell you
> that for many people when I present that maybe evolution and their
> strong Biblical version of Christianity perhaps are compatible, from
> some people I can sense this tangible sense of relief. They cannot
> deny God - their personal experiences of meeting with God are too
> strong for that - but also they are uncomfortable with going against
> established science. Not knowing any better, they find it easy to
> latch onto the pseudo-scientific and conspiracy arguments of the I.D.
> movement, but truly I think many people are uncomfortable with this
> point of view.
>
> Quit trying to fight the evangelical christian types - rather try to
> get alongside with them. You will make your scientific views more
> popular, and you will do Christianity a favor.
Yes! And same goes for political conservatives (I'm one too - sort of).
Too often criticisms of ID/creationism sound like an excuse to defend
liberal politics. But many of us conservatives do defend evolution and
good science.
Fellow pro-science people: why not take advantage of *all* of your
resources?
>
> But your current approach just isn't working - as it says in Acts 26:14
> - "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
>
> Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith
- Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- References:
- Antony Flew anyone?
- From: Lantog
- Antony Flew anyone?
- Prev by Date: Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- Next by Date: Religious/scientific or political/scientific controversy
- Previous by thread: Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- Next by thread: Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
