George wrote:
> 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.
Could you say more why you think that a natural theology with no appeal to
revelation is dangerous. One could say the scientifically understanding the
universe is revelatory in itself. After all if God created the universe
then one would expect to be able to make some kinds of inferences from the
examining the handiwork. I can see how an independent natural theology
*just* based on science might be open to error but that could also be said
of biblical or other revelatory resources. The argument could just as well
be said that an independent biblical theology is dangerous. Seems to me
that no matter where a revelation is sought, there is a strong element of
risk.
>>>
> 4) It's unfortunate that almost everyone in this debate, proponents &
opponents
> of ID alike, are willing to do what theology they do in terms of "theism"
with no
> reference to distinctively Christian understandings of God, creation, or
providence.
> The best arguments for a kenotic (non-dabbling) understanding of divine
action, e.g.,
> are christological - the very idea of kenosis comes from Phil.2:5-11.
Such a view has
> to be evaluated with explicit reference to God's revelation in Christ.
Whether or not
> we dabble in our children's lives may make a useful illustration but can't
be the basis
> for our theology.
<<<
I think it will be up to the theologians(Christian and otherwise) to take
the ID framework and evaluate its place in theological thought. I would
hope the scientists will refrain doing to much outside their specialty. As
has already been seen that can lead to a lot of emotion that clouds the
scientific endeavor. I actually think that there are already some pretty
strong positions by folks like Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Murphy and others
that have already formulated quasi-theological/scientific proposals for
God's actions in creation. If the ID movement gains any widespread
credence in the scientific community, it will only bolster those positions.
I guess I don't get your point about kenosis in this context. Are you
saying that Christianity presents a strong "non-dabbling" religious system?
You may be right about kenosis but the whole rest of the Bible is about
God's "dabbling" in a big time way.
Best Regards,
Steve Petermann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 22:08:15 EDT