Georgia Purdom, a research scientist at Answers in Genesis, gave a lecture about the Intelligent Design Movement. She calls it, "refurbished natural theology". Here is the link to the video:

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

Those in the political ID movement confuse philosophy (high metaphysics, natural theology) with natural science.

It is not the job of science teachers to draw inferences from scientific data toward the existence and attributes of God. Science teachers aren't trained or paid to speculate about Big Questions such as these; asking them to do so is asking them to do philosophy. Rather, their job is just to present and explain the received scientific data scientifically -- period. It's a simple job, really, and all we should be worrying about is science teachers staying within the boundaries of that job, i.e. not speculating about what this data might entail for this or that Big Question, which, depending on the teacher, may mean the non-existence of God. And in no way is refraining from inferring God's existence, etc., from the scientific data a rejection of God's existence. It's just a science teacher knowing his or her role.

What ID folks should be doing is pushing for philosophical education, with an emphasis on the philosophy of religion.

__________________
Nathan Tyler
Reformed Baptist
University of Toronto (Student: Hons. B.A. in Philosophy)
Ontario, Canada

1689'er

http://nathantyler.wordpress.com

Greetings and welcome to the PB! I'm in and out and only check these threads once in a while so I have not "met you" yet. Good to have a fellow Torontonian and U of T'er here for some more Canadian content. I am interested in several aspects of what you've stated but time and responsibilities prevent me from engaging as fully as I would like. Having said that I'll try. First, I agree with your first sentence - at least the part about the political ID confusion. The ID movement is well intentioned but, I believe, wrongheaded. That we agree on. I think the movement is primarily useful insofar as it reveals the extent of the entrenchment of those in the educational establishment who oppose it.

For the rest of what you wrote, I confess I'm more a disciple of Augustine(Crede, ut intelligas - Believe in order that you may understand) and Van Til's concepts of analogical knowledge than Thomas' empirically based philosophy of sense and intellectual knowledge (and his natural theology). I believe that knowledge is not neutral because man's mind is not neutral (Romans 1:18ff. Cor. 2:14) because of the noetic effects of sin. This would preclude a "neutral" presentation by an unbelieving science teacher about the origins. Everyone is biased by their presuppositions. This doesn't mean that they are always wrong if they are not Christians, it just means that their worldview always impacts their teaching whether it is the migration patterns of finches or the theory of relativity.

One of the things that Answers in Genesis (AiG) gets right in this video (and I don't agree with some of their dispensational influenced hermeneutics) is that they understand that they, as believing scientists, are looking at the very same evidence (data) as unbelieving scientists but reaching a much different conclusion because they have different starting points.

The very first exhibit in the AiG-financed Creation museum outside Cincinnati, OH makes this point very well. It shows a Creationist paleontologist working side by side with an evolutionary paleontologist - same tools, same fossil - different conclusion. Why? Different initial presuppositions. The evolutionist believes Darwin's theory. The Creationist trusts that God's historical account in Genesis 1 is true and that a catastrophic flood devasted the world and created the fossil record as per Genesis 6-9. Each seeks to reconcile the "facts" according to their belief framework. The Starting point is not reason or brute facts, it is revelation.

But, what led me to post this is to ask a couple of questions for your consideration. As a former/current (of a different kind) teacher and as one who is grappling with educational issues, I am interested in the practical outworkings of your last propsal:

Philosophy is literally the "love of wisdom." All education seeks to impart wisdom but I don't see how it can be separated from its worldview. Education occurs in the context of a particular worldview it whether it is the educational philosophy of secular humanist John Dewey or the Christianity of Cornelius Van Til.

As a real world example the Toronto Public School Board is pursuing a clear philosphical bent in education. Its religion is secular humanism or (at best) religious pluralism.

In your view 1) how is this not already a philosophical education with an emphasis on the philosophy of religion? 2) how would you do things differently?

Thanks and good to "meet you"

In His grace,

__________________
~Pastor Chris Powell~
Covenant Baptist Church, Toronto
Church Website: www.covenantbaptistchurch.com
Team Blog:www.ardentcries.com

When I chatted with Dr. Purdom in her office in the Creation Museum the summer it opened, she was raving about reading pre-suppositional apologetics. Some of these folks may be moving closer to the Reformed camp.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

And if they just add a dash of natural theology, we will be cooking with grease.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC