Re: asa-digest V1 #691

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Tue, 06 Jan 1998 18:24:16 -0500

John W. Burgeson wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> "The _theological_ problem with the claims of Behe _et al_ & the
> whole ID movement is that they insist that certain natural phenomena
> _compel_ us - if we're intellectually honest - to acknowledge God at
> work, & that independently of faith in Christ."
>
> George, in my exchanges with the ID folks (how I wish you had been at the
> NTSE!), I have not observed the above as their assertion. Johnson put it
> well at the NTSE when he said that the ID work would, if successful, make
> science more "theistic friendly," but that's all. I happen to disagree
> with Phil on this -- I see it opening science to potential abuse, but I
> think I have an open mind on the issue. I see ID, if it has value, and
> it may well have value, as not needing in any way to appeal to the
> supernatural -- only to intelligences outside of humanity. That's all.

Maybe that's true in principle - but how open are Johnson _et
al_ to the possibility of something like Crick's "directed panspermia" -
which is ultimately a naturalistic explanation?

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy