<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">John I and II (Epps & Cock)<div><br></div><div>You saw something quite different than I did. I found all three to be not helpful for the dialogue. I found the Archbishop to be defending the two story universe on more than one occasion and Dawkins arguments is full of holes. I won't try and go point by point, but I have a friend who has written a book that takes on Dawkins arguments. And I'll attach a small segment from his opening chapter. </div><div><br></div><div>You (John Epps) are very kind to Dawkins with your last statement "The two can co-exist......" because, although there is a general acceptance of evolution by most theologians (but not necessarily to the degree of mindlessness that Dawkins advocates), their side (Dawkins) does not recognize the other side at all. All of the wonder and mystery will some day be understood as simply brain signals that trigger these feelings etc. etc. So the whole "game" is played on the left brain rules of the game; logic, science and language. </div><div><br></div><div>I'm not going to again make the case for an intelligence implicit in all things, but the ability to have a purpose to all this requires some direction, some purpose behind all the science activity. The capacity to integrate experience and thus evolve into better survival capacity requires intelligence.</div><div><br></div><div>Jack</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, here is an excerpt that is a commentary on Dawkins book "River Out of Eden". "DOWNSIZING DARWIN: An Intelligent Face for Evolution" by Robert Campbell.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="text"><b><font size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">reface to River out of Eden:<br><br></span></font></b><font size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">Dawkins begins his book with a poem by Piet Hein:<br></span></font><ul style="padding:0;margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;" type=""><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">Nature, it seems, is the popular name</span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;"><br></span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">For milliards and milliards and milliards</span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;"><br></span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">Of particles playing their infinite game</span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;"><br></span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">Of billiards and billiards and billiards.</span></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;"><br></span></font></ul><font size="2"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;"> <br>There you have the bias of science wrapped up in a nut shell. Everything is the result of local interactions between elementary <br soft="">particles, going all the way back to the big bang. This is the view of the cosmic order held as immutable truth by mainstream <br soft="">science—an article of faith without a shred of supporting evidence.<br><br>Think
for a moment. If all being, including the entire universe, is truly
just a random game of atomic billiards, then there is no real <br soft="">or transcending basis to values of any kind, including truth. Therefore there can be no basis for saying that everything can be <br soft="">reduced
to atomic billiards, for this mindless view offers no basis whatever
for truth itself. It is a self contradictory position. It <br soft="">presumes
a thing as true while implicitly denying there is such a thing as
truth. Truth can hardly be the accidental result of atomic <br soft="">billiards.<br><br>One should be able to stop right there. The inherent contradiction should be seen by those who would maintain the position, <br soft="">discouraging
them from holding to it. They should look for a more self consistent
view, for an implicit order that allows of truth. .<br soft="">Why don’t they then? <u style="font-weight: bold; ">Because they do not have access to a practical alternate paradigm that will allow us to understand how <br soft="">intelligent processes work.</u> (My bold and underline - JG)<br><br>I would like to be kind and give Darwinists the benefit of a few doubts that may emerge here and there, and overlook weaknesses <br soft="">in
their arguments in the hope that their intentions are directed toward
an impartial determination of the truth. But they don’t see <br soft="">how they can open the door to other possible options because the alternative is creationism. This is not just a matter of a <br soft="">difference
of opinion over a few minor issues. Arguments on both sides are riddled
with obvious flaws and flaunted in the face of <br soft="">solid
evidence to the contrary. Such an entrenched approach on both sides
carries with it a good measure of self-deception. They <br soft="">are reactionary positions in the evolutionary arena.<br><br>These opposing positions have little to do with the facts of the matter. They would dispense with most of philosophy, most of <br soft="">psychology, and proceed to contradict the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention the impact on our cultural traditions. On the <br soft="">scientific
side this blind one-gearishness would ultimately reduce us all to
mindless greed and obsessive action, all in the guise <br soft="">of logical argument.<br><br>Darwinian
evolutionists must choose to ignore a large body of contradictory
evidence in order to foster their beliefs. Their faith in <br soft="">the blind process of “natural selection” prejudices their efforts. On the basis of Dawkins’ book, it will be shown that extreme <br soft="">Darwinism is a blind belief without foundation, as fervent as any religion and with all the ear marks of self-deception.<br><br>To suggest, as Dawkins does at the outset, that the Darwinian view has poetic beauty and inspirational value is to seriously <br soft="">compound
the deception, for now we are treading in a fanciful world of double
speak. It is inconsistent with Dawkins’ argument to <br soft="">throw in
a healthy dose of values, including beauty and inspiration. Beauty and
inspiration are larger than the bare facts of life. <br soft="">They are universally recognized qualities that are implicitly associated in some way with ultimate truth, transcending physical <br soft="">existence. We all sense their transcendent quality and we credit their ephemeral essence as real. Values determine everything <br soft="">that
we do. But here we are urged to use them in order to justify a blind
materialist view with no self-consistent place for values at <br soft="">all. At the same stroke we are to believe that this is in accord with sound reason.<br><br>That’s
double speak. After all, no intelligent reader is likely to deny a
place in their lives for beauty and inspiration. Are atomic <br soft="">accidents beautiful? We can’t even see them, much less assert with such confidence that they determine our being. Who really <br soft="">wants to live in a world reduced to atomic billiards? Who really believes it?<br>If
no one really believes it, yet say that it is so, why do they make such
efforts to sustain the deception? Why did Darwin go to all <br soft="">the
trouble in the first place? No one can deny the “extreme perfection and
complication” of nature’s mechanisms, but to suggest <br soft="">that Darwin’s hypothesis explains them is an unsubstantiated leap of blind faith. Why did Darwin take this leap?<br><br>Is it as Richard Dawkins suggests, that nature’s complex mechanisms fulfill an apparent purpose? Purpose again implies <br soft="">values
in anticipation of achieving a future objective. We take medicine for
the purpose of curing a disease. We say it is valuable <br soft="">for
achieving that anticipated result. Can we invest genes with the capacity
to anticipate the future? Purpose implies intelligence <br soft="">at
work to achieve a meaningful result. Then how can all creation be the
accidental result of blind atomic billiards? We shall see <br soft="">that double speak pervades the arguments for Darwinism. ....</span></font></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"><br></span><div><div>On May 21, 2012, at 4:52 PM, <a href="mailto:jlepps@pc.jaring.my">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
Thanks Paul for this fascinating dialogue. It was far more civil than
some of the exchanges of ideas that often occur on this side of the
Atlantic. <br><br>
IMHO, Dr. Dawkins was quite modest in his claims to certainty about
things, and Archbishop Williams was quite articulate in defining what he
did and did not mean by "God." It seemed, though, that Dr.
Dawkins was objecting to a notion of God that Archbishop Rowan did not
advocate, and that is an example of what I find objectionable about
Steven Hawking's book. Of course it would be silly to expect physicists
to be experts in theology, as it would be for theologians to claim
expertise in physics. The two can co-exist quite harmoniously with one
dealing with value and meaning (why) and the other dealing with the
nature of reality and its operations (what and how). <br><br>
John <br><br>
<br><br>
At 12:40 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="x-msg://414/"><font size="2">I enjoyed the
debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these
questions:<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0</a><br>
<br>
Maybe it adds another dimension...?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time,
<a href="mailto:LAURELCG@aol.com">LAURELCG@aol.com</a> writes:<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>Jack,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the
Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've
called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all
intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the
All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One
with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good
scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else
would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years,
or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists
like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes
collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story.
This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the
church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality
movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably
ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the
people."<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From the great central valley of California, the center of the
Universe,<br>
</dd><dd>Jann <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="mailto:icabombay@igc.org">icabombay@igc.org</a> writes:<br>
<dl>
<dd>As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that
the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent
and that intelligence can be understood.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<br>
</dd></dl>_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Dialogue mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>