Thank you, Allan. The trouble is again alack of philosophical and
theological study by persons advocating ID. I believe, that I am very
orthodox, believing every word in the Bible, but I do think that most
people advicating ID read the Bible as they read a science book which it is
not. Consequently we have to read poetry as a recitation of facts, rather
than a poetic way of describing GOd's works to a people liable to leave
their trust in God. Thus so-called "contradictions" are not dealt with, or
in a very superficial way. If you do not read the Bible in their way you
are liberal, but I am afraid that ID, and especially Interventionism, is so
totally unbiblical that I shudder. It is indeed a God-of-the Gaps theory.
So some can say, that their scientific stusies are not guided by their
faith in God, who came to us in Jesus Christ. After all, if God is not
everywhere and in all our works, I am reminded of what we read in the NT
after evil spirits are thrown out: If the house (mind) many others will
come and occupy the empty space.
In another message (James Behnke) I read about apologetics being the
driving force for some research. I would like to suggest, that theology
should give the direction to apologetics. I don't think that results in
other sciences will have any influence on apologetics or theology. It is
the other way around. I believe, that all Christian scholars should spend
much time in reading the Bible and comparing translations, notes,
commentaries (especially from people you totally disagree with) etc..
Jan de Koning
Willowdale, Ont.