Re: "Behe disproves evolution"

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:38:21 -0500 (EST)

At 07:37 PM 1/15/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
> Behe accepts quite a lot of biological evolution [defined by me as
>descent with change, non-miraculous]. There's a lot of variation among the
>amount of "undesigned" biological change accepted by ID adherents. At
>least some misrepresentation (probably in large part due to
>misunderstanding) of stances has taken place (e.g., "Behe proves YEC
>views").
> In addition to the poor communication that generates or reinforces
>a gap theology in the minds of listeners, I'm not happy with much of ID
>because I don't find it scientifically accurate. God can and does act
>miraculously; however, a lot of the time, He acts in accord with the
>physical laws He made. In much of the ID writing I have read, there is far
>too much "This can't be by definition" to support a claim of being based on
>scientific evidence.
>
>David C.

Dear David,

I am not sure I understand your statement that "God can and does act
miraculously; however, a lot of the time, He acts in accord with the
physical laws He made." Einstein said that either you do not believe in
miracles or else everything is a miracle. A Christian must ascribe
himself/herself to the latter. It seems to me that God creates constantly
instant by instant as viewed by those who are part of the creation whereas
from His viewpoint He created once. Therefore, all the laws of nature are
subordinated to Him and not the other way around.

Take care,

Moorad