Re: ID at NRO

Bill Dozier wrote:

> There's been much discussion of ID over at National Review Online
> (they don't like it much; the latest issue had a critique by John
> Derbyshire that I haven't read yet). Here's a concise take-down by
> Jonah Goldberg:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_02_06_corner-
> archive.asp#055799
>
>
Jonah Goldberg does well by distinguishing the rhetoric of ID from what
is in the proponents' hearts. What the ID proponents desire is make sure
God is given His due over and against "godless science". They don't want
God to be too small. But, the rhetoric of ID does precisely that. ID
does not give us a "God of the gaps" but rather a "God of the ghetto".

Let's assume they are right for a second. The implication is that God
dose not act after the first six days. Edward Hassert accused us of
being functional atheists. ID is functional deism. The only difference
is deism has God actions stop at the beginning. ID has this come six
days later. Even if these days are not calendar days, they are still in
the past, and thus God is no longer immanent now.

All of this is completely unintentional, though. When debating ID we
need to make this abundantly clear. Otherwise, those who hold to ID will
feel wrongly accused. But, having made that distinction there may be a
hope of separating otherwise well-meaning people from this destructive
and theologically wrong-headed theory.
Received on Sat Feb 12 14:35:01 2005