Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

Ted wrote:

> Only certain things *can be shown to be* irreducibly complex. These
> things
> *require* a design inference *in science.* Other things, such as the
> whole
> of nature, may also be designed in a more traditional religious sense;
> it's
> just that the design inference to a scientifically necessary designer
> cannot
> be made.

However, many ID supporters do not see the broader understanding of
design as particularly theologically useful or significant. As you
indicated in an earlier post, many seem to not really grasp the
theological force of things like divine providence and immanence, or
concursus and divine cooperation with creaturely action. In their
view, for God to really do something significant as Creator, that
action must be outside of natural process. It seems to me that they
imply that a God who acts within and through the God-created and upheld
processes of the natural world is somehow less worthy of worship and
less compelling to the world. I really get a sense that in their view
if God is the God revealed in scripture that his action will be
discernable by science. Significantly, that is the same view held by
Dawkins and other scientific materialists. It God cannot be proven
through science then God doesn't exist, or is not any kind of god worth
worshipping.

Keith
Received on Sun May 22 20:13:50 2005