The following is a transcript of an recent IM conversation I had with a good friend of mine (minus a few irrelevancies). Friend1 (I also changd the IM names) is a physicist who works for a government research lab.
friend1: conference just ended
themetapundit: cool. headed home today?
friend1: submitted paper finally
friend1: no kidding
themetapundit: that's a load off :)
friend1: bible study put off I see
themetapundit: yeah I want to go hear phil johnson
friend1: evolution guy?
themetapundit: yeah, ID guy
themetapundit: turlock. I sent email to biblestudy list
themetapundit: had modbee clipping in it
friend1: i should read them better
friend1: ID was a joke topic today at the conference
themetapundit: really. what'd people say?
friend1: ID seems somehow less upstanding than creationism
themetapundit: psuedo science?
themetapundit: yeah sorta. i'm trying to decide myself, philosophically
themetapundit: if principle of irreducibility is scientific
themetapundit: or just philosophic
themetapundit: feels like "god of the gaps" again
themetapundit: the bits we can't explain, god did that
friend1: I can support creationism as religious and thus anticipate and tolerate disbelief and antagonism
friend1: ID is not religious specifically and thus ...insert vague emotion
themetapundit: yeah. problem is science
themetapundit: as a "scientist", ie thinking scientifically, creation is not a testable hypothesis
friend1: doesn't bother me, neither is evo
themetapundit: i tend to agree that macro-evolution as explanation for everything we see isn't either
themetapundit: so do we cede science to materialism but insist on scientific humility?
friend1: Our entire scientific framework is largely based on evolution
themetapundit: i might be happy with that
friend1: no, we don't cede
themetapundit: well aside from materialistic hypotheses, what can science study?
friend1: I do in some ways agree with those who speak of people of myth and people of fact, excepting the "myth"
friend1: I mis read, yes to materialism, no to current "scientific" worldview
friend1: In many ways, they need not overlap,
friend1: Truly, we can always say to any objection, But God
friend1: And thus any material reason can never over come faith
themetapundit: current scientific worldview = evangelistic materialism (ie the cosmos is all there ever was or will be?)
friend1: Often we think of the inconsistency of christians who believe evolution as inexcusable
friend1: however, this seems to me to be a minor inconsistency in the lives of christians
themetapundit: well. I don't much like ken hamm anymore
themetapundit: but i think he got one thing right
themetapundit: evolution has man arriving by process of death
themetapundit: creation story has death arriving as result of sin of man
themetapundit: completely opposed ideas theologically
friend1: indeed, for a complete view, one must have the basis
friend1: I do not think in our current evironment that this foundation is required for firm faith
friend1: we have reached a state where one can begin belief (in anything) at the top level
themetapundit: other problem. evolutionism is evangelistic. If admit to evolution (man as product of chance) why God?
friend1: reason can be developed later, but rarely is
themetapundit: who needs him
friend1: Christianity as a narrative
friend1: Reason will never be the critical factor for the conversion of souls I do not believe.
themetapundit: hmm. So even if you (as pagan) believe life is meaningless (there is no meaning)
themetapundit: if i can through experience/narrative show you a life of meaning
themetapundit: you might believe first?
friend1: Without doubt
friend1: I may not, others will
friend1: In fact, that it seems is the typical mechanism of conversion
friend1: I need, Christ has
friend1: Deal with other issues later
friend1: We will never be able to prove the critical element, that is Who Christ Is/Was by any other means than our lives
friend1: It seems even less important that we thus establish creationism
friend1: Muslims and Jews are also creationist
themetapundit: so what is my response to carl sagan?
themetapundit: i have faith that what you assert is not so
friend1: Certain individuals will react differently
themetapundit: do i merely offer criticism? Science cannot support the assertions you are making?
themetapundit: I think what ID and evolution offers is an offense instead of just playing defense
themetapundit: very tempting
friend1: To Sagan you can say, you are wrong, I need not prove it
themetapundit: And sagan says, no you are wrong, i can prove it
friend1: he cannot, but God
themetapundit: and lots of moderately well educated people believe they have no choice but to assent to the propositions of materialism
themetapundit: ID/creationism offers at least a semblance of intellectual respectability
friend1: I do not think that many are so tightly held, the the call to their heart cannot be heard
friend1: the quick (false) reasoning can be that of theistic evo
themetapundit: god of the gaps. Not sure ID is far off from that
friend1: Indeed, I think ID/creationism is great, but should not be such a priority for Christians
friend1: we should be more understanding of the world, prove by our lives and peace
friend1: we reviled, we bless
themetapundit: i think yes, as a christian that is my position. i just have more trouble doing so as a "scientist" (using that term very loosely) or intellectual.
themetapundit: i hate to drop out of the debate, to answer reason with faith alone
friend1: We need not when benificial
friend1: I do not think that we will every achieve critical mass in the arguement though
themetapundit: just don't see "disproving evolution" as the way we'll force everybody to become christians
friend1: Heading to dinner, ltr