Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

David wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
Design in the conventional sense implies intent, as opposed to purely chance
processes. However, Intelligent Design as a movement also generally claims
that some implementation that sets aside continuous action of natural laws
is necessary.
<<<<<<<<

I think there are at least two schools of thought in the ID movement
regarding the casual joint. Some(Johnson?) see a break in the continuous
action of natural laws and some(Dembski from my last reading) are inclined
to look to natural quantum indeterminacies as the source of intelligent
activity.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although evidence of design in creation (if detectable) suggests (a)
designer(s), this is not theologically very useful. Unless we know whether
this/these designer(s) is/are Zeus, Baal, Ungabunga, Raelian aliens, Allah,
Jesus, etc., we cannot tell what we should believe about God and what duties
He requires of us (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, I.i).
<<<<<<<<<<<<

If there is nothing that science can say to religion then you would be
right. However, if religion is open to at least re-evaluating its theology
based on current scientific knowledge then I think it is important to
explore the implications of various speculations on intelligent design.
What is at stake I think is the question of how compelling the current
theological message is for people in the 21st century. These folks are
constantly inundated with the science/techno worldview that often
conflagrates metaphysics with science. Theology that does not speak to them
where they are will not do justice to the gospel message.

Steve Petermann
Received on Mon Dec 1 17:45:10 2003