Golden Oldies
by MikeGeneBack on April 16, 2004, I wrote:
The TEs might want to consider that if the ID Movement evaporates, they're next in line for wearing the "creationist" label.
Back on August 13, 2005, I wrote:
Collins and Miller accept evolution in its mainstream formulations, are supposedly only "nominally religious" , yet they are GUILTY of doing "lasting harm." It turns out they are part of the problem. It may be obvious to some of us that Sam Harris is a true Fundamentalist with a secular creed (a mirror-image of the people who frighten him), but that gets us nowhere as it's okay to be a the right type of fundamentalist in certain circles. Just keep your eye on the ball. In his mind, and the mind of many of his colleagues, there is no room for religious faith. The faith of someone like Ken Miller does "lasting harm" as it looks to "accommodate" the "religious irrationality."
And you thought it was about evolution and science.
November 26th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
I think the ID crowd is largely mistaken on this, and satisfied by easy, but misgiven ideas of why TEs take the position they do. It's become quite cliche to cast TEs as "compromisers", appeasers simply motivated by the search for a middle ground.
For many, that's just a form of self-flattery, a way of avoiding the problem of faithful Christians that are looking the scientific witness in the eye.
Are secular fundamentalists going to come after TEs? It's already happening. But no matter, TEs like me, and others I know aren't at all motivated by a kind of "peace in our time". That view is just a useful illusion for creationists that see the war on Darwin as a form of righteousness. Secular fundamentalists that I talk to are quite happy to let the YECs go on all they want. YEC claims are so discordant with science that the more they talk, the more anyone who give science any weight gets the impression that Christianity is just a bunch of baloney.
TEs are a much more formidable foe for secular fundamentalists. The facts are not turned against these creationists. Their theology remains in force — the fact of God's creation and sovereignty over the universe, the fall of man, the need for salvation, the Incarnation, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the availability of grace and eternal life — it all remains proclaimed.
It just doesn't get attached to antiquated, over-reaching scientific claims that weren't warranted in the first place.
But no detente with secular fundamentalism is desired, or even possible for TEs. Science is science, and the evidence is what it is. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is wholly compatible with creation — it's God's creation, God's truth, and transcends it. Can we prove God from the stucture of DNA? I believe its possible in principle, but not inevitable, or at all necessary.
The Gospel fits with creation, but transcends it.
So secular fundamentalists can have at it. We're firmly opposed on metaphysics, no matter how much we agree on the physics. Our interpretation of the scientific evidence wars against the interpretation of Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. It was always thus.
It just want be like shooting fish in a barrel like young earth creationism is/was, and ID is, increasingly.
-Touchstone
Comment by Touchstone — November 26, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
TE's believe in 'Creation.' Does that make them 'creationists'? NO.
Graphic designers (set designers, interior designers, fashion designers, etc.) belive in 'design.' Does that make them IDists? NO.
Have you ever met a Playboy model, Mike? Might wanna ask them about what it means to wear a label, for better or for worse. Labels exist for the most part not without reason and decision.
It's not about evolution - most people in this discourse won't answer the 'which evolution, whose evolution' question. Like Mike (if I could be like…), many people accept a universalized evolutionary meta-narrative. Everything evolves, just as Daniel Dennett claims - the problem for Mike (it now seems) is not the science but the anti-religion.
The Harris-Dawkins-Dennett trio is a red herring, a distraction. Dawkins will fall. These words need not be marked. What Mike is still not included in is the theological dimension/sphere, the non-natural science area of the conversation. And yet he promotes telic thoughts (which Ken Miller's and Francis Collins' faith implies)!!
No, it (i+d) is not about 'evolution and science' - welcome to the IDM's attack on naturalism, materialism and secularisim (in America).
Comment by g arago — November 26, 2006 @ 9:15 pm