Re: ID at NRO

Jonah Goldberg wrote:

"...By saying that God is only where science isn't seems...to be a massive surrender of the jurisdiction of the Almighty...."

And Bill Dozier wrote:

"...The implication is that God does not act after the first six days...."

These positions, we were told, represent ID thought. Do they represent ID?

In his recently referenced reply to Henry Morris, Dembski stated, "I am not a young earth creationist nor do I support their efforts to harmonize science with a particular interpretation of Genesis." And, "...Young earth creationism is...off by a few orders of magnitude in misestimating the age of the earth."

And, "ID is part of God's general revelation." [That is, it's not the whole of God's revelation.] And, "In inferring design from aspects of the world, we are always looking at finite arrangements of material objects and events involving them. There is no way, logically speaking, to infer from such objects to an infinite, personal creator God." [That is, one doesn't infer the Christian God from evidences for ID.]

Long term it doesn't help anyone's cause to grossly misrepresent the opposition.

Don

PS - If anyone wants to review this Dembski - Morris reply, it's at:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm<http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm>

 
Received on Sun Feb 13 02:44:07 2005