Re: TEs vs materialism and McGrath vs ID

On 5/24/05, Phillip Jones <pcjones5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> While I am not a proponent of ID, I hardly expect ID, or any divine
> creation
> theory for that matter, to bring anyone to a faith in Christ. While such
> views may serve as a launching pad by lending credibility to the arguments
> for the existence of a divine creator, they hardly serve as a gospel
> presentation. Flew's lack of salvation experience cannot be blamed on ID.
>
> -Phil

Exactly. In fact, Flew's route to deism followed more of McGrath's argument
than classic ID. I happen to think that McGrath's design arguments are
superior to ID but Flew illustrates the limitation of using science for
apologetics purposes EVEN WHEN THE ARGUMENTS ARE VALID. Sure, they may help
or get people part of the way there but we should not put too much weight on
them. Terry Gray is probably scratching his head right now because it sounds
like I'm a presuppositionalist, but any good evidentialist knows the
limitations of his arguments and also acknowledges the noetic effect of sin.
We can blame ID for many things, but this is not one of them. There is only
one reason why Anthony Flew is not a Christian: Anthony Flew.
Received on Tue May 24 22:42:12 2005