Clergy Letter and Different Orders of Truth

Filed under: Apologetics, ID — Barry Carey at 6:35 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2006

Tom Magnuson at ID Update blogs concerning “The Clergy Letter” which has supposedly been signed by over 10,000 members of the clergy supporting evolution. You can read the letter here. I would like to present a couple of excerpts of this letter.

Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Well, apparently having some basis in reality is not part of the definition to these ministers. What does it mean to be a different order of truth? Religious truth, in the eyes of these clergyman has little to do with providing factual information, but is to transform hearts. This is nothing more than more postmodern gobbledygook. If truth is not based on what is in fact true, transformation is meaningless. Christ’s church is not populated by transformed, deluded members. I may be quite naive, but I still find it hard to believe that there are so many relativist clergyman.

To argue that those who question Darwinian evolution are failing to employ their God-given gifts of reason is ridiculous. It is these clergymen who somehow believe an absurdity…that truth can state that something is the case and not the case at the same time. Either philosophical naturalism is true, or it is not.

The claim that science can be science and religion can be religion, and that they can peacefully co-exist as complementary forms of truth is only possible if they make no claims about the same subject. If they do, and are in opposition, they cannot both be true. Christianity does make claims that are grounded in our real material world, such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, that science states cannot happen. Either it did or it did not. Either we are the product of blind chance which precludes any supernatural intervention, or the result of the design of an intelligent being.

11 Comments »

75

Comment by John

January 22, 2006 @ 11:47 pm

“Either we are the product of blind chance which precludes any supernatural intervention, or the result of the design of an intelligent being.”

That’s both a false bifurcation and a straw man.

MET says that only our variations are due to blind chance. The other major component, natural selection, is not random. It’s either dishonest or ignorant to portray evolution as mere chance.

76

Comment by Barry Carey

January 23, 2006 @ 12:24 am

John, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my statement. I was merely trying to illustrate that Darwininian evolution (not necessarily evolution, though) and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive and not both true. Your point regarding natural selection not being random seems rather moot. The environmental circumstances which bring about natural selection are random. Therefore, it seems to me that both the variations and the natural selection are in a real sense random (not directed by some intelligent force). Thanks.

77

Comment by John

January 23, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

Barry, MET says NOTHING about whether environmental circumstances are random or directed by some intelligent force. For example, I think that it is obvious that many of the environmental circumstances that led to the evolution of modern dogs from wolves are clearly directed by intelligent forces–humans. We also are the products of sexual selection, which is directed by the choices of other humans and apes in the past. Sorry, but even with your “clarificaton,” your bifurcation doesn’t work.

I also find your post theologically offensive when you wrote, “Christianity does make claims that are grounded in our real material world, such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ,…” Who appointed you as a spokesman for Christianity? I know plenty of Christians, including ministers, who don’t view the Resurrection as bodily. Then, you try to misrepresent science again: “… that science states cannot happen…” Science isn’t the business of stating what is impossible. Science is the business of explaining what happens, with every conclusion a provisional one. That’s why ID is pseudoscience–we don’t need it to explain the spectrum of life today, but it can never be excluded. There could be a Creator that just makes everything look evolved.

It seems to me that you misrepresent the claims of scientists to justify your own immodest hyperboly in scientific and theological matters.

78

Comment by Barry Carey

January 23, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

John, I appreciate your comments,but I think you are missing the point. I will grant that human intelligence/activities can theoretically affect selection processes in evolution. The whole point of the blob (and the context in which I made my statements) is that Darwinian evolution and a Supernatural creator cannot both be true, because they are contradictory. By definition, Darinism excludes the supernatural.
One could make the case that Darwinian evolution reduces intelligence and sexual choices to mere deterministic natural processes so that we deceive ourselves to even think that we have free will. The “bifurcation”, as you call it, stands. One cannot have both a supernatural being who intervenes in the world and a world in which no supernatural intervention is allowed. Granted, ID makes no claim as to the identity of the designer being supernatural. But the context of my blog was a religious one, where ministers claimed one could believe two contradictory things.
One does not have to be appointed a spokesperson to offer his opinions concerning a group of people. It is true that many who call themselves Christian believe many different things. However, orthodox Christian teaching stresses a bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who claim otherwise are certainly not considered orthodox.
I did not misrepresent science, when I stated that science says the resurrection could not happen. Modern science (Darwinism, in particular) excludes the supernatural. I do not believe true science excludes the supernatural. True science seeks the truth no matter where it leads. You misunderstand Darwinism if you think that “science isn’t the business of stating what is impossible”. While Darwinists may not say that God is “impossible”, they at least feel that he is irrelevant and has no basis in reality.

79

Comment by John

January 23, 2006 @ 8:15 pm

-”The whole point of the blob (and the context in which I made my statements) is that Darwinian evolution and a Supernatural creator cannot both be true, because they are contradictory.”

They are not even remotely contradictory, because evolution is about deriving different forms of life from existing life, not the origin of life. Once again, you misrepresent in predictably dishonest/ignorant ways. Which is it?

-”One cannot have both a supernatural being who intervenes in the world and a world in which no supernatural intervention is allowed.”

Agreed, but unfortunately for your polemic, science is about explaining what we observe, not about what is allowed. You are missing the point by miles, Barry. There’s no contradiction because there is not even an intersection. MET is perfectly compatible with a universe created by a supernatural being.

The only thing it conflicts with is the notion that mankind was created independently from other animals. How do you explain nested hierarchies in that context? Is your God lazy or incapable of designing new stuff? Neither is very compatible with any belief in omnipotence. This is why IDers don’t try and test their “hypothesis”–every observation requires an explanation that necessarily pertains to the characteristics of their Designer.

-”But the context of my blog was a religious one, where ministers claimed one could believe two contradictory things.”

My point was that your contradiction is entirely dependent on your misrepresentation of the scope of scientific inquiry. Argument by reassertion is weak, Barry.

-”One does not have to be appointed a spokesperson to offer his opinions concerning a group of people.”

Agreed, but that wasn’t what you did. You made a claim of fact about what a group of people believe, and your claim was both false and breathtakingly arrogant.

“Those who claim otherwise are certainly not considered orthodox.”

Now you’re desperately moving the goalposts. Lutherans and Congregationalists are plenty orthodox, and plenty of them don’t believe that the Resurrection was physical. You’re confusing orthodox Christianity with modern US right-wing, selective literalists who reject the majority of Jesus’s teachings.

-”I did not misrepresent science, when I stated that science says the resurrection could not happen.”

Argument by reassertion doesn’t help you.

-”Modern science (Darwinism, in particular) excludes the supernatural. ”

Correct! That wasn’t what you claimed, however. Modern science simply does not concern itself with the supernatural. Claiming that something is impossible is about as unscientific as one can get, which is why you falsely portray scientists as making such an arrogant claim.

The arrogant one here is you, and putting arrogant words in the mouths of others doesn’t conceal it.

-”True science seeks the truth no matter where it leads.”

True science is about explaining the world in which we live by observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. Are you seeking the truth, Barry?

-”You misunderstand Darwinism if you think that “science isn’t the business of stating what is impossible”.”

I’m a geneticist and cell biologist, and everything I do relates to evolution. I’m quite confident that I understand it better than you do.

-”While Darwinists may not say that God is “impossible”, they at least feel that he is irrelevant and has no basis in reality.”"

Well, I’m what you would polemically label a “Darwinist” and I’m a Christian, so please stop lying about what I feel, Barry.

When you stop using the polemic terms “Darwinist” and “Darwinism,” you’ll have taken a step toward honesty, but I don’t see you doing that anytime soon. Did Darwin discuss drift, for example?

80

Comment by Barry Carey

January 23, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

Well, John. I would have been happy to continue to debate the issue. I have attempted to address the arguments. It seems you have digressed more and more into insults and name calling. I am not dishonest. I am not a liar. I am not ignorant. It is alright to tell me you disagree with my assertions, it is another to judge my character. You are always welcome to comment here. But, I do not feel like continuing the discussion with someone who assaults his opponent, not his opponents arguments. Take care.

82

Pingback by withallyourmind.net » Darwinism = Naturalism=Atheism?

January 24, 2006 @ 6:49 pm

[...] A response in comments to one of my own blogs similarly complains: Well, I’m what you would polemically label a “Darwinist” and I’m a Christian, so please stop lying about what I feel, Barry. [...]

86

Comment by Larry Lamb

January 25, 2006 @ 11:18 am

It was PILATE who asked “What is truth?” (John 18:38).

Speaking as an atheisr, I get the impression that we’re the only ones who actually read the Bible.

88

Comment by Barry Carey

January 25, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

Thanks Larry. A little brain fatigue apparently. I stand corrected. Glad you read your Bible.

93

Comment by John

January 31, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

“Well, John. I would have been happy to continue to debate the issue. I have attempted to address the arguments.”
Not really, Barry. You’ve simply reasserted your fallacious points.
“It seems you have digressed more and more into insults and name calling.”
Barry, reread my posts. I attacked your arguments, particularly your dominant method of argument, which is systematically misrepresenting your opponents’ positions.
“I am not dishonest. I am not a liar.”
If you aren’t, then why don’t you quote a passage from above in which I digressed into name-calling? YOU’RE the one name-calling, with your “Darwinist” and “Darwinism” labels. They are dishonest, and a clear attempt to divert debate from science. Science is about following the evidence, not the man.
“I am not ignorant.”
You clearly are ignorant about what I feel and many Christians believe about the Resurrection, but that doesn’t stop you from pretending that you do know.
“It is alright to tell me you disagree with my assertions, it is another to judge my character.”
Thanks. The former is precisely what I’m doing. How would you characterize your claim that I did any name-calling? Wishful thinking?

3729

Pingback by rbieawno - Google Search

October 2, 2006 @ 7:24 pm

[...] [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>