Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Plantinga Changed His Mind
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by whag View PostI thought the discussion was about why non-lethal variance is seen as design, while birth defects and the like can be ruled out as such. I think this is related to lao tzu's can of worms statement?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostOkay. I don't think Christians would see all non-lethal variance as design - I certainly don't. Some? Possibly.
In short, your reserving the right to dismiss dysteleology as design isn't coherent from a scientific standpoint. This would be well and good if DI/ID kept discussion of it in church and the Christian university labs, not so much when they complain about having no seat at the evolutionary table.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostOn the contrary, I want you to participate. I've invited you to discuss this many times.
You called me out for not reading an about section that doesn't explain what the video is about. Watching the video is the best method for determining what it's about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostNah, you're not interested in discussing anything. You only want me to participate as long as I'm taking a position directly opposite or in line with yours, not when I'm calling you out for making up contradictions. Thanks, but I'll participate how I want.
I know its a novel idea, but maybe, just maybe, its good idea to watch the video and read the submitter's notes. Then you won't find yourself in the awkward situation of ignoring correction when its offered, or pretending that others didn't watch the video.
Interestingly, Craig refers to theistic evolution as a "chic" position now, but still thinks it's unfair that Behe and Dembski aren't allowed to represent it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostMolecular alteration of the course of evolution invokes a hyper-Calvinistic determinism far beyond the scope of any human decisions, however. These are changes that precede the affected human, and directly affect the ability to make the human decisions a theistic god must oversee. Here I see an entirely intractable problem: suffering inflicted by a God on a perfectly innocent victim, not only through no fault of her own, but through no fault of any other human.
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostThese are changes that precede the affected human, and directly affect the ability to make the human decisions a theistic god must oversee. Here I see an entirely intractable problem: suffering inflicted by a God on a perfectly innocent victim, not only through no fault of her own, but through no fault of any other human.
Originally posted by Paprika View PostAre you still discussing the case where God is not intervening to prevent a birth defect? If so, I'm sure I don't see how it's inflicted by God. Allowed, yes, but not inflicted.
The way to see this is to consider a coherent, theistic alternative:
À la Francis Collins, the existence of humanity, and perforce, individual humans, is contingent on the natural process of evolution. This is a Thomasite position, and responsible for the general rejection of ID by Thomasites. They don't want a God who needs to tinker with the created product in order to "get it right." This form of ID Creationism is still, in some sense, Theistic Evolution, but it preserves the innocence of the Creator, and, incidentally, the rational worldview that allows for confidence in tracing the work of that Creator.
Even lacking belief in any deity, I can defend this view. Not so, its alternative.
The problem of evil is only a problem to the extent that the evil is created by a God, and even then, only to the extent that that God is imputed benevolence. Removing divine benevolence still allows for a coherent deity, but one that can only be feared, not loved, and devolves justice from a principled position into a cosmic version of "might makes right."
As ever, Jesse
ps. As much as I'd like to continue this conversation, there shall be at least a hiatus here while I attend to other issues, and if the thread keeps moving at pages per hour, I'm afraid this could be my last response. Thank you for your thoughts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostI don't see then why it's worth arguing that even lethal design can always be ruled out as design..
Comment
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View Post"Allowing" harmful molecular changes in a creation in which molecular changes are instantly governed by a Creator is indistinguishable from that Creator "inflicting" those harmful molecular changes.
To me it's boils down to a special case of the problem of suffering - which I am careful not to identify with evil- which you may not want to defend, but I think is defensible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI think you meant "lethal variance"? Why should that be the case? The case is that some variance is design, so why can't lethal variance not be design? Sure, you may not accept the rationale as plausible, but a priori there's nothing that rules it out.
If this were the case of a mere theological midrash, it's a great topic. As science, reading supernatural intention into structures is an impediment to research and the cannot worms Lao tzu described.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostCertainly it would be difficult. Whether it is impossible I'm not sure and don't care to make a judgment either way.
That's really the whole issue summed up. It's a great midrash in church, but not near being a useful field of study.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingoWhat matters to me is that you posted both links as though DI was saying one thing and Craig was saying another (specifically about Behe and Dembski). But it turned out YOU were wrong. Both links agree that Behe and Dembski are Theistic Evolutionists. Listen. For the sake of your post #62, I don't care if they really are or are not. What I care about is that you were wrong for implying the links were contradictory. They're not. At least, not on that point.
Originally posted by DembskiThe product that's being sold is theistic evolution, the view that God brought about the complexity and diversity of living forms, once first life was here, via the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.
A microevolutionist or progressive creationist does not a TE make (not unless you're sloppily redefining terms to avoid minor controversies). It's a very specific thing DI clearly defines, using Giberson, Enns, Miller, and Collins as examples of its representatives.
This video is more interesting. In it, he calls TE a solution to a problem that doesn't need solved. Why would he say that if he held to it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYN8g...e_gdata_player
I will concede he does briefly refer to IDs who accept human/chimp common ancestry (he was thinking of Behe here, probably), but he's not referring to TEs. TEs by definition don't think evolution needs any tweaking, which is a clear point of disagreement between DI (the IDs) and BioLogos (the TEs).
And that's why Craig was pulling a fast one in his Triumph of Behe video. He's using a definition they both don't agree on.Last edited by whag; 04-01-2014, 10:24 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
192 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment