Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <chris.barden@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

>>>> Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> 10/14/05 10:56 AM >>>quotes Phil
> Johnson as follows:
>
> "Is the evolutionary creationism of Denis Lamoureux different from
> what I have just described as theistic naturalism? It might seem so,
> because he endorses teleological evolution ... On closer examination,
> however, it appears that the 'teleology' part is entirely subjective
> and has no more scientific content than the 'theism' in theistic
> evolution. What exactly did God do (beyond establishing the laws at
> the beginning of time) and how do we know that he actually did it?"
>
> This is to me the single most troubling aspect of ID--and I speak
> (obviously) as someone more sympathetic to ID than most here. If we
> replace
> the words "evolutionary creationism of Denis Lamoureux" with the words
> "prayer life of X" (fill in that blank with any Chrisitian you want to
> name)
> and make appropriate substitutions elsewhere in the paragraph, then I
> think
> we get right to the heart of the issue.

& even more directly to Johnson's claim: The most basic teleological claim
that Christians (presumably including Johnson) make is the second coming of
Christ and the full establishment of the kingdom of God - & how much
"scientific content" is there for that? With all of Johnson's flailing away
at naturalism he apparently doesn't realize that he's succumbed to the
notion that the natural sciences provide the only valid way of knowing
reality.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Oct 14 13:46:43 2005