<<My point is that tree biology can be taught in
100% naturalistic terms without invoking direct intervention by a designer
and we do not have problem with it--it doesn't diminish our recognition of
God as creator. Christians seem to be more concerned about whether or not
origins are taught in 100% naturalistic terms.>>
I agree with both statements. But I also see the reason for the latter, which
describes me.
The "project" of people like Dennett and Dawkins is to ELIMINATE the need for
God from ultimate reality. This is precisely why Dennett's book is entitled
"Darwin's DANGEROUS Idea" (emphasis mine). For D & D, belief in God is not
only superstitious, it is harmful--to persons, to society. Therefore, whatever
Darwinian foothold they have they use as leverage against the "dangerous" idea
of God.
This is the sort of leverage people like Phillip Johnson have called them on.
And they're mighty testy about it. I think because a nerve has been directly
hit.
Jim