Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by ken.
Dear Paul
I liked your well reasoned and measured response.
On science, Sean and I are diametrically opposed. However, I think he has a very thick skin and a great deal of compassion for those that goad and attack him. As an agnostic, in my mind, he demonstrates a courageous and generous spirit. I think many likely fear him because of his strong intellect and viewpoints. In my experience, I see people attack others when they are feel fear and insecurity.
I’m not sure however if your well meaning attempts to modify his approach to exposing the teaching of evolution counter to FB#6 are correct. Others of more moderate disposition can attempt this. In my respectful opinion, if Sean is to carry the scientific banner for YEC and FB#6 he must be a very strong advocate otherwise the science behind YEC will be seen as watered down intellectual soup.
I think the theory of evolution is correct and I do not see any credible basis for a young earth. However Sean’s work has caused me to examine my beliefs and look very seriously at the notion of ID. I don’t care if he is being shunned by mainstream science, I care about the scientific integrity of his work. His approach to look for empirical data, independent of his faith, is the only thing that can lend any sort of independent objectivity to his work. Can he do that? That remains to be seen, but I for one want him to have every opportunity.
Crusaders like Sean are going to take heat, it comes with the territory. But if they show moral equanimity towards others do they not fill the type of people Jesus espoused we become?
One the areas I am now reading about is evolutionary development at the genetic level. Although I am early in my reading, I think the research may provide some answers as to how single genes can cause huge developmental changes in evolution. This may shed light on the plausibility of ID hypotheses, especially irreducible complexity. Good food for thought for all of us.
My hope for all is that we can proceed with a collective civil tone but rigourous intellectual endeavour. Out of that will come much good. Paul, your post has gone a long way to accomplishing that ideal. Like you wisely said, it is not so much what is being said as to how it is being said. Now if only I can learn that with my teenagers!
A sincere thanks, from your agnostic friend
Ken
Table of Contents
ken Also Commented
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Dear Paul
What do you think of Dr. Clausen’s work? Is it sound and if not why not?
Regards
Ken
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Dear Paul
Thank for your kind comments.
I am most interested in your work and will indeed review it.
The issue of design is a fascinating one and should not be treated lightly or dismissed in my humble view. I suspect, but do not know, that many of the answers are going to be found in the emerging field of evolutionary development at the genetic or molecular level.
Its going to be an enjoyable, rewarding intellectual trip. I look forward to being on the boat with everyone.
Regards
Ken
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Re Sean’s Quote
“However, the main point here is that the SDA Church, as an organized body, needs to have its own trial and verdict in order to maintain itself as a viable organized body of believers. As it currently stands, the Church is fragmenting and rapidly heading toward chaos and ultimate irrelevance. Such pronounced and widespread schizophrenia, as is currently evident within the Church body, does not a healthy body make.”
Dear Sean
On that point I agree with you 100%. Frankly I can’t see how Elder Wilson can sanction the science of the GRI and maintain FB# 6 on an absolute basis. To me the two seem incompatible.
Regards
Ken
Recent Comments by ken
God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean
I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/
Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?
“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.
Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?
I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.
They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.
People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”
Hello Sean
First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.
Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!
However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.
I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .
However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.
Good luck in your pursuit of God.
Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Wes’s Quote
“. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”
Hi Wes and Sean
I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”
Hi Sean
The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?
Conviction requires courage period.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Intelligent Design
Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.
Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
creation ot theistic evolution.
But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.
Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.
Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
