Alden Swan dot com

I had so many options for naming this particular post, it was very hard to decide. And, I knew that I’d get reamed no matter which I chose. My other options were “Ignorance is… well, ignorance” and “Stupid is as stupid does.” Anyway, you get the idea.

Not that I’m calling PZ Myers names or suggesting that he’s not intelligent in his own area. I think he’s probably a pretty smart guy. I’m just referring to something that he posted yesterday, where he obviously stepped outside of his area of expertise, and led a host of his followers down a merry trail of dumber and dumber comments (hence my choice for the title).

The post I’m referring to is entitled Little imaginary beings, where he pokes fun at William Dembski, who wrote the forward for Peter S. Williams’ book, The Case for Angels. A quote from Dembski’s forward:

There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.

Myers apparently thinks this is hilarious, and ends with the brilliant and tactful conclusion: This crap is just plain idiocy.

Now, what’s “dumb” about that? But then, why does Myers think this is so funny? In fact, why should he be surprised at this at all?

Dembski has never hidden the fact that he believes in a super-natural, non-material reality. Dembski teaches at Baylor University, which is the largest Baptist University in the world (although someone needs to remind their president of that fact). Myers knows this. If Myers understood anything about religion or the beliefs of the majority of people in America (not to mention other places), he would know that belief in angels is consistent with both Christianity (remember the Christmas story?) and with Judaism.

So again, why should this be surprising? Why, in fact, even mention it at all? The proper response to this news, in any other forum, would be something like, “we already knew that, you lamebrain.” But, take a look at the stream of comments to the post. It makes you wonder. All of a sudden, Carry and Daniels seem like intellectuals. We all know that PZ Myers doesn’t believe in anything non-material. We accept that. It’s not news. Dembski, on the other hand, does, including believing in angels. For that matter, so do I. That is not news, either, but feel free to laugh. It is, as they say, a free country.

Now, on to this post at Touchstone Mag, which informs us that The Center for Inquiry is holding a conference in NYC, called “The Secular Society and Its Enemies,” which is “to address the alarming abandonment of Western secular values…”

Abandon? Western secular values?

In this post, I will try to address my friend Mike’s comments and questions that he posed in comments here. First, it seems to me that you’re trying to make me say things that I’m not saying. I’m actually less dogmatic about some things than you think I am.

(Some of) What I believe about God is this:

1. God is Spirit, therefore non-material (except for the incarnation of Jesus, where God became man.
2. God is outside of the material universe, which includes time.
3. God can and is involved with the material world (i.e. incarnational).
4. God can operate within His created system (that is, naturally) as well as outside of the system (supernaturally).
5. As God does not have to conform to the laws of the universe that we are subject to (specifically “cause and effect”), He cannot be “tested” according to the Scientific Method.
6. God is personal and can be known, but on His terms; that is, through revelation.
7. The existence of God probably cannot be proved in a deductive sense, or according to the scientific method.
8. The existence of God can be assumed inductively based upon what we see in the physical world (Romans 1:20).

ID is a counter to a science which is controlled by a philosophical materialism, which claims that God cannot exist because only the material world exists. If science (especially that as taught in our school system) was not controlled by materialism, I don’t think ID would be an issue. I don’t know how many of those claiming to be proponents of ID believe that God can be proved. Most that I know of believe that design is supported. Even Dawkins agrees that design is apparent; he, however, tries to show why that is illogical, but he failed miserably. As far as I can tell, ID is not about proving there is a God; it’s simply trying to pull science back from it’s current philosophical prison.

I don’t know that I would disagree much with Thomas Robey; again, I have never “demanded that it be proven.”

Concerning evolution, I don’t believe that the evidence supports common descent. It certainly doesn’t support neo-Darwinism. It does appear that there was some “front-loading.” From what I understand of Behe’s latest book (I’ve read both sides), there does appear to be an “edge” to evolution, and there does, in fact, seem to be a point where it becomes de-evolution. As I’ve said before, I am not dogmatic about my thoughts on evolution; there’s nothing in my theology that says God couldn’t have used evolution, and to some extent, it appears that He has utilized it. Certainly there are adaptive functions at work- in fact, the whole system appears marvelously designed. You have accused me of “creating a roadblock because of the way you want your faith to be demonstrated materially.” I don’t believe this reflects what I believe or what I’ve said.

Bottom line, I’m not trying to use science to prove God; I don’t believe that God needs to be proved, and I certainly don’t need to try to do it. As C.S. Lewis was pointing out in The Great Divorce, you could put some people in the middle of Heaven and they’d deny it existed; belief (or unbelief) is often not a matter of “proof.” I’ll re-quote from Jesus: “I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” However, where science (or a materialism or naturalism masquerading as science) attempts to “prove” that there is no God, I merely point out the rather obvious errors in their thinking. And, so far, the errors have been obvious.

Jonathan Miller, the noted British humorist, opera director and atheist, interviewed Richard Dawkins on evolution and related issues for a series he was doing for the BBC. In this segment (part 3 of 3 available on YouTube), Dawkins explains his belief that the question of the existence of God is a scientific issue:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq9C6HglKRY]

It is my understanding that this was shown as part of Miller’s 2004 BBC shows, The Atheism Tapes. Parts 1 and 2 of this interview are also available on YouTube here and here. So, this is nothing new or groundbreaking, but as has been said before, it does provide support for including Intelligent Design and/or Creationism in science classes, regardless of the Dover decision. Dawkins, in taking this position, does appear somewhat braver than those who would rather silence any challenge to naturalism. Of course, I believe his logic is off, in his assumption that any God who involves himself in creation would necessarily be subject to a cause-and-effect analysis.

I also realize that in taking the position that I do – that God is not necessarily “testable” through the scientific method – that I sound as if I could end up siding with those wanting to keep Creationism out of the public schools. However, I’ve held all along that science and philosophy are (or should be) “joined at the hip.” Science without some “big picture” thinking (even allowing for the possibility that something exists outside of what we can touch and see), is dreadfully dangerous. The moral implications of “pure” science are horrifying – just take a look at Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Dawkins, here, is at least thinking outside the box – or, rather, rethinking what should be in the box.