Re: Phil Johnson's agenda
George Murphy ("gmurphy@raex.com"@raex.com)
Sat, 04 Dec 1999 08:30:12 -0500
glenn morton wrote:
>
> I couldn't sleep because of this note written by Johnson. So, I came
> upstairs to write this. And this is a sad thing. Many may disagree with me
> on this but from my perspective Johnson's rather arrogant in-your-face
> message that Christianity is not on the top of his agenda bothers me. On
> the 18th of November I e-mailed Paul Nelson to cite some things that
> saddened me about the ID movement the main thing. One of them was Johnson's
> statement in Touchstone last summer. I am saddened that they want to remove
> the Bible from the public discussion. And what is so surprising to me is
> the willingness of the Christian publishers to go along with them by
> publishing their books that never seem to mention anything about
> Christianity or the Bible. It has occurred to me that Phil, in the letter
> below is merely being consistent with what he has been saying for a long
> time. He has said so on numerous occasions but no one has been listening.
> After tonight's letter from Keith, maybe people will listen a bit. ............................................
I would put the matter a little differently & perhaps should for those who
wonder why I seem to harp on "naive natural theology." I have no problem with
someone who is up front about believing in the God revealed in the Exodus & the
cross-resurrection of Christ, who then looks for further evidence for that God's
presence & activity in nature. That may well include a search for design, though of
course then the focus has to be on whether or not the arguments for design actually
work.
It is quite another matter to start - or claim to start - from a position which
is religiously neutral, and search for evidence of "God" who is in fact _defined_ by
the way in which the search is conducted. I.e., a search for "God" via arguments for
design has already decided a priori that God is the Intelligent Designer.
Such a search is one in which Muslims, Moonies, & all sorts of philosophical
theists can happily join. & it might be that after this "God" has been proven to the
satisfaction of the searchers, that they will go their separate religious ways, & that
some of them will - for one reason or another - make the further identification of the
Intelligent Designer with the One revealed in the cross & resurrection of Jesus. But
history shows - & Paul pointed this out in the much-misinterpreted Romans 1 - that there
is a very strong tendency for our searches for God to produce idols. In this case the
idol is the Intelligent Designer, the Supreme Being, whatever you want to call it. It
is no accident that such a God can easily be identified with Allah but not so easily
with the Trinity, one of whom was crucified for us.
I know from experience that the ID folks will avoid these issues like the
plague: For various reasons they don't want to consider any theological questions about
their crusade. I hope, though, that Christians who are more open minded will give
adequate attentioon to the theological - & not only the scientific & philosophical -
problems with the ID movement.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/