> In the "Mere Creation" conference, J.P. Moreland and Stepen Meyer argued
> successfully that a design paradigm is more fruitful in accounting for the
> devolopment of the mind and the Origin of biological information which
> cannot be satisfactorily explained by methodological naturalism. <Snip>
> Just as Del Ratszch conceded, "in the area of empirically supported
> arguments involving introduction into post-creation history of design,
> and involving counterflow, intervention, or nomic discontinuity, design
> theory has available to it resources beyond the reach of theistic
> evolution (who advocate "methodical naturalism)"
I find the following state of affairs curious. The
motivation of many of those who argue for "intelligent design" &c
is theological. Persons such as myself who advocate the attempt to
explain the world as thoroughly as possible in terms of rational natural
processes, with the belief that God works through those processes, are
criticized as "methodological naturalists," with its implication of
deficient theology. Yet when we make the argument that such
methodological naturalism represents a better way of understanding the
Christian view of creation than does irreducible appeal to such things
as "design", the response of the design partisans is _not_ on
theological grounds but on those of natural science. I.e., they don't
seem to want to carry on serious discussion of the theological issues.
SHALOM,
George Murphy