Re: ID at NRO

Don Winterstein wrote:

> 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."
>

First of all, I said this, and not Bill. Second, let's put my quote in
context:

Let's assume they are right for a second. The implication is that God
does 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.

Being an OEC does not get ID off the hook. The age of the earth is not
the issue here but the God in the gaps approach. Regardless of how long
the days are they are in the past because the "gaps" are in the past.
That mean's that God doesn't act NOW. ID is not like other more generic
teleological arguments where God designed EVERYTHING, gaps or no. If it
was, I would support it. I also said that this implication is not what
proponents of ID intend. Hopefully, the dissonance between the theory
and the intent will rightfully shock ID proponents into their senses. I
laud their goal of trying to prove intelligent design, but their current
"proofs" leave much to be desired.
Received on Sun Feb 13 18:18:59 2005