Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

---- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Michael Roberts ; Ted Davis ; dfsiemensjr@juno.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:50 AM
  Subject: Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

      I agree, however, that to limit detectable design to certain things, is to risk falling into the God of the Gaps type of argument.

      "Undetectable design" is undetectable because God has carried out that design through natural processes. Both good theology & good science then suggest that we continue to look for natural processes through which supposdly "detectable" design has been carried out. But IDers don't want to do that because they want the design to remain "detectable" - i.e., not explained scientifically.

      & by doing this they don't "risk" falling into a GoG view. They have not just fallen but have happily jumped into it.

  George,

  I was actually agreeing that there are weaknesses in the ID GoG view, but taking issue with Michael's interpretation of Behe. I most humbly beg your forgiveness for not being strident enough in my denunciation and using language that was far too mild.

  Just don't let it happen again! :)

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun May 22 15:53:46 2005