Dear Sean and Academic Gentleman, I’ve been enjoying your debate. Sean, your …

Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Ken.

Dear Sean and Academic

Gentleman, I’ve been enjoying your debate.

Sean, your critical assessment of Schubert receiving divine revelations from God and pronouncements on science is well made. Now I hope you can put on your rational, scientific hat and understand that the same criticism applies equally to EGW.

I fail to see how the theories of evolution or ID are inherently evil. My goodness they are ideas on the nature of reality to be freely debated not malignancies. I’m not religious but I don’t fear, resent or categorize the Adventist faith as evil. In fact I respect your right to your faith and even though it does not make rational sense to me I appreciate how it does to you.

Debate on, there is nothing to fear except closed minds and hubris. No one has a franchise on truth.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

Ken Also Commented

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
Re Kenneth’s quote and EGW on the Albigeneses

“Yes, the Cathars (Albegenses) taught that Satan created the world. Yet, Ellen White, in her landmark book The Great Controversy, praises the Albigenses in two separate places. ”

“Century after century the blood of the saints had been shed. While the Waldenses laid down their lives upon the mountains of Piedmont “for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ,” similar witness to the truth had been borne by their brethren, the Albigenses of France.”
— Ellen White, Great Controversy, Ch 15, p271.

Dear Sean, Bob and Kenneth

Re Empirical Tests for EGW as a prophet or messenger of God

Kenneth thank you for your comments and erudition regarding EGW and the Albigenses.From my brief reading it appears as if the Abigeneses or Cathari as they were alternatively called, were dualists. They believed in a God of Good and a God of Evil with equal powers. They also believed that Jesus was a created being but not God.

It appears as if EGW said the Abigeneses were witnesses to the truth, i.e the word of God.

Sean, is this empirical evidence as to whether EGW is true messenger or prophetess of God? Bob, does EGW’s support of the Abigenesis fit within your first test of being a prophet: the message indicates a ‘doctrine coming from God tested against the Bible?

Gentleman, I look forward to your comments.

Regards
Ken


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
Re Bob’s quote

“The first test of a claim to being a prophet is that the doctrines supposedly coming from God in those messages – have to be tested against the Bible (“sola scriptura” as they say). If the teaching supposedly coming from divine revelation is flawed – then the person is a false prophet because God does not contradict God.

The second test of a claim to being a prophet is found in Matt 7 “by their fruits” you shall know them. The test is against the person to see if they are known for living a sanctified life – devoted to prayer and integrity.

And as you note – when it comes to additional messages that cannot be tested via Bible (like – hey there is a tree that will fall on this spot next Tuesday, as a silly example) – then you have things like accuracy and fulfillment.”

Dear Bob

Thanks for your comments.

Is that an empirical test or one of biblical interpretation? Sean what do you think?

Don’t we have to look at other factors, such as the claims of original thought or inspiration versus the writings of others?

Regards
Ken


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
Hi Sean

Re Pax 6 Homologue Gene in eye development

I thought you might find the following article interesting. Seems like a single gene -arising from a mutation and kept by natural selection? – can have a lot to do with the development of the eye. Does this fit in with your ID hypothesis or Behe’s ideas on irreducible complexity?

Regards
Ken

[edit]


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