Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Ken.
Re Sean’s Quote
“It is impossible to detect the need to invoke deliberate design vs. the non-deliberate products of an apparently mindless nature without having prior experience with the material in question as it relates to various mindless forces of nature. That’s why the detecting of design is a science that requires some investigative work. The more investigation that is done, the more confident one can be in one’s design hypothesis.”
Hi Sean
More reflections of the insomniac agnostic.
I agree with much but not all of this. Why not start from a neutral point and ask whether any object found in nature can be created randomly by nature or requires intelligent design. Obviously first appearences can be deceiving. I’m pretty sure that if I was ancient [feels like that some days 🙂 ] , without the benefit of modern astrophysics and biology, I’d conclude the universe and life were designed. But science seems to be progressively dispelling notions of design in nature as cause and effect mechanisms are uncovered. Crystals and snowflakes have pretty intricate designs, but were they designed or formed by the laws of physics and chemistry? A watch? A Martian granite cube as you described? What natural physical processess could have randomly created same?
Let’s continue with life forms on earth. We all seem to agree on micro evolution, right? Hence life forms we see today have changed from their original state. Hence current forms of life could not be the original design [don’t see any Ryanesqe telomerasian 900 year olds walking around today 🙂 ]. Hence if the design is always changing -unlike a static object like a found watch or Martian cube obvious to the non biased objective reader 🙂 – what was the inaugural design? Does irreducible complexity stop at the Krebs Cycle or earlier enzymatic cascades, or earlier…? If science, and I admit it is a huge task with gap work to be done, continually traces life back to earlier forms, what empirically was the original design? Life created 6000 years ago? – Michael Behe doesn’t think so- or anthropic stardust soup? And how did the natural ingredients in the turbulent kitchen without a Master Chef’s Hand cause the soup to change?
The same logic can be applied to the universe. If things are changing the existing state is not the current design. What then, according to science was the original design? Was the big bang a spark from the snap of the Divine fingers, caused by collidng membranes or a spontaneous quantum fluctuation? Theories abound and science will continue to inexorably peck away at the fabric of myth with its empirical beak.
Designed or not, I see the sun rising and so shall on this wonderful world.
Enjoy life and its myriad, diverse contemplations.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Table of Contents
Ken Also Commented
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Lydian’s Quote
Here lies exceptional Christian grace for the worst apostate. This grace surpassess all doctrinal argurments in its appeal to the heart.
Lydian my dear, you have nothing to fear, for your God is very near.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Dear Sean
There is nothing to forgive as you have been a gentleman and were not personally attacking me. I took no offense whatsoever my friend.
In fact I think our dialogue was good because I caused me to really think deeply about what I believe.
The problem with any ontological classification is that it usually covers a range of belief. For example look at the YEC/YLC camps within Adventism. Which is pure Adventism and is there room for both camps under the classification? I think that principle likely applies to agnosticism as well.
Anyways enough about me I want to turn back to Hawkings for a bit if that is all right. I’m not so sure he has changed from an agnostic to an atheist notwithstanding his position on our universe. He may have only moved up a few turtles looking for the Grand Design of metaverses vs the creation of our universe. What if there is indeed a set of principles or basic laws that govern everthing? Where did they originally come from if not from some infinite creative God/force? Something had to make not only the first roll of the dice but the dice (laws of metaverses) themselves right?
Although I think it is likely such a force exists, because the alternative of ultimate metaverse creation ex nihilo seems absurd, it still begs the question as to the nature of that force. Do I have faith in it? No because I don’t know whether it exists and atheists could be right. Does it have human like intelligence of something far beyond what we can comprehend? Don’t know that thus can’t make a leap of faith in that regard. Saying that something is likely does not mean I have faith in, it just means that it is more probable than not. This is conjecture, not faith, otherwise I’d be a deist.
Take care
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Hi Sean
Effective atheist, closet creationist, close to classic IDist or creationist?
Are you sure it is my agnosticism that is changing rather than your opinion of what I am?
Your agnostic friend
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
