Apology for intemperate comments

A few days ago, I posted the following comments, in response to one of George Murphy's posts. Please refer to my comments below, which I consider important.

My post: George's points about the theological shortcomings of IDs are on target.
Generally speaking, there are very few (if any) theologians involved with
ID; most IDs don't read contemporary theology except to find places where
they believe "Darwinism" has "corrupted" theology; they lack discernment
partly out of ignorance of the large range of modern stuff, which does take
time and experience to sort out, and partly b/c they do want to keep things
in an "us vs them" mentality--that suits their political strategy just fine,
thank you, while it does shortchange the truth.

A good number of them do not understand even something as simple as the
classical (not modern) theological view of concurrence--that God does things
in and through secondary causes. They seem to me almost incapable of
understanding such a view, or else they seem to think that this type of
thinking started only after Darwin, in order to make an "accommodation".

Nevertheless, I still say that many of us perceive the truth differently
from many of them. They do see things much more simply, which hurts the
truth when they speak the truth as they see it.

****

The tone of my comments has offended several of my friends, and I offer here an apology to them. I share George's concerns about this issue, but I should have expressed myself in a gentler tone, more consistent with that of my other recent posts on similar issues (the ID vs TE debate). I regret my poor choice of words, and retract the implication that some of my friends are just too dense. It would be much more accurate and fair just to say simply, as I do in the final paragraph, that they perceive the truth differently than I do*and they are entitled to do so without my questioning their intelligence.
Received on Tue May 24 10:51:39 2005