DT:
> > For me, ID is a statement of presuppositions, not a "finding" of
> > science. If we do not start with God in our thinking, we will never
> > "prove" the existence of God by our research.
LH:
> Of course, if you "start with God," you won't be able to "'prove' the
> existence of God" either, because the reasoning will be circular. ;-)
>
> It seems that ID is attempting to show the following: If you
> start with God, the data says, "compatible;" if you start by assuming
> Naturalism, the data says, "incompatible."
Yes, if ID is a statement of presupposition, arguments about
"proving" the existence of God are non-starters. The people who have
tried to prove God's existence are supporters of "Natural theology" -
and this is not a way I think Christians should be going in our
thinking.
But what we do have is two parallel approaches to the interpretation
of data. And this is very interesting - because it then opens the
door for the explanatory powers of alternative hypotheses to be
compared. It is not just a case of forcing every bit of data to
"fit" the predetermined mould. Words like "compatible" and
"incompatible" can be used as part of this evaluation of
alternatives.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***