Re: ID at NRO

Rich Blinne wrote:

"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."

Don't understand your argument. No IDer or YEC, I'm sure, believes that God doesn't act now. This is a primary reason I think you've misrepresented ID.

Dembski clearly stated that "ID is part of God's general revelation." So, if Dembski regards his position as one of looking for God in the gaps (and I doubt that he does), those gaps are clearly not the only place where he thinks God is to be found. The stuff he's finding in the gaps constitutes only a part of God's general revelation, so there's more of God to be found in the rest of his general revelation plus, presumably, in his special revelations.

To spell it out, Dembski's God may well still be acting in these latter two kinds of revelation. How is it possible then to infer that he believes God only acted in the past? He could well believe that God acts continuously but that detectable evidences of his special input were rarer. This scenario, BTW, would be wholly consistent with the Bible's portrayal of God's activity in the world.

[Sorry about the incorrect attribution.]

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne<mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com>
  To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  Cc: Bill Dozier<mailto:wddozier@mac.com> ; asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:18 PM
  Subject: 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 Tue Feb 15 03:39:08 2005