----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 12:48 AM
> 3) My qualification that it is _independent_ natural theology - i.e.,
with no
> appeal to revelation - which is dangerous is important. The ID argument
would be quite
> different if they were to state up front that their belief in intelligent
design is
> based on acceptance of biblical witness to God's purpose for creation &
that they are
> then seeking to understand the working out of that purpose by scientific
investigation.
> That would not change the scientific status of ID claims. It would,
however, require
> IDers to face theological issues they now avoid, such as whether a God who
acts as they
> think in creation is really what the biblical picture of God points to.
Given their admissions that ID has nothing to do with religion, they can't
do that! Here is what Jay Richards wrote. Jay is the director of programs at
the Discovery Institute.
**
"Behe's argument does not entail (as in logically compel) a theological
conclusion because it is consistent with other explanations. For instance,
perhaps some advanced alien race planted fully constructed, reproducing
organisms on a hospitable earth some time in the distant past. IN that case,
someone other than God would have designed these features of the biological
world. Sure, it's far-fetched; but it's possible. For this reason,
intelligent design arguments in biology do not normally entail theistic
conclusions even if many people suspect God is lurking somewhere in the
background." Jay Wesley Richards, "Proud Obstacles & a Reasonable Hope,"
Touchstone, July/August 1999, p. 29-32, p. 31
**
"It is a mistake to view the theory of intelligent design (ID) as merely or
even primarily a disguised apologetic for Christianity or theism. IT is
primarily a theory for how we may properly conclude that something-whether
it be a human artifact or biological system-is designed." Jay Wesley
Richards, "Proud Obstacles & a Reasonable Hope," Touchstone, July/August
1999, p. 29-32, p. 29
"Still, design theory's greatest apologetic value may be its potential to
defeat the biggest stumbling block to faith in the contemporary world,
namely, scientific materialism. For Christians, the most devastating
consequence of materialism is its tendency to harden the minds and hearts of
modern people to the gospel." Jay Wesley Richards, "Proud Obstacles & a
Reasonable Hope," Touchstone, July/August 1999, p. 29-32, p. 32
I would say this. If ID REALLY CAN mean that alpha centaurians designed life
on earth, as Jay says in the first quote, then ID is then no blow to
materialism. If the little green men evolved materialistically and then
designed us, materialism still reigns. ID is worthless as a counter to
materialism.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 22:01:51 EDT