In a message dated 5/30/01 9:21:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
bpayne15@juno.com writes:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 10:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Joel Cannon
> <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu> writes:
>
> > It appears from this that you would agree with Richard Dawkins, Carl
> > Sagan, etc. that God is a hypothesis competing with science to
> > explain the natural world.
> >
> > How can a God who sent his Son to give us new life to die for us on
> > the cross be irrelevant?
>
> By setting religion up as contingent on a "God of the Gaps", showing how
> the gaps have been explained, and saying therefore God is not necessary
> to explain the cosmos.
>
I'd agree with your analysis of Dawkins, Sagan, et al. Given that you
recognize how wrong they are, I am puzzled why you are a fan of the
"Intelligent Design" movement. Their only disagreement with Dawkins is with
regard to whether or not the gaps really have been explained, when they need
to disagree with him on the more foundational issue of the gap-dependent
metaphysical framework. If you reject the God of the Gaps framework, then
evolution (or any other natural explanation) will not "undercut" Christian
faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 31 2001 - 00:33:01 EDT