Glenn wrote:
> 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.
Actually from the standpoint of logic the same statement could be said about
Darwinian theory. How ever the alpha centaurians came to be they could be
the ones responsible for "punk eke" or other leaps in complexity. They
could, as we speak, be playing with our DNA to suit their whims. Whatever
has been selected could be just an alpha centaurian preference.
> Quote from Jay Wesley Richards
> "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 disagree with Richards here that scientific materialism is the greatest
stumbling block to Christianity. To the contrary, I think the greatest
stumbling block for Christianity is the church's inability to embrace
science and reformulate its eternal message in terms that the scientific
world view can accept. Scientific materialism is only a threat to those who
aren't interested in the truth. But from my experience that is only part of
Christendom. If Christianity dies it will be with a whimper not a bang. It
will die because it is no longer relevant and it becomes impossible to
accept a superstitious, nature violating religious system within the modern
world. I know many people who have left the church because of intellectual
integrity who still none the less believe strongly in God and in some
measure the tenets of Christianity.
Best Regards,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: A response to Maatman with transcript
> ----- 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 - 22:39:40 EDT