On 10/10/06, Todd Pedlar <pedlto01@luther.edu> wrote:
> 2) Let's not fall prey to making the genetic fallacy. Well's column is not
> suspect simply because he's a Moonie, any more than Covey's business
> advice is suspect simply because he's a Mormon. Both have flawed
> theologies, but the arguments of both should be weighed on their merits,
> not on the characteristics of the authors.
Yes, let's avoid the genetic fallacy. I was in part arguing tu quo
que. Philip Johnson in my opinion commits the genetic fallacy
vis-a-vis Richard Dawkins and Evangelical critics of ID. Nevertheless,
who you agree with and disagree with does have some bearing. The
question that needs to be asked is how can a Moonie so easily accept
ID? One perennial topic on rtdisc is evidentialism vs.
presuppositionalism. Here the presuppositionalist rightly asks is the
God that is proven by evidentialist truly the God of the Bible? At
least to me, the God that is implied by ID runs counter to 1 Cor.
14:33. Here the Corinthians appeal to the supernatural as a sign of
God where Paul counters that order is it. In Scripture, even when God
uses the supernatural it is orderly and also clearly points to Himself
in the process. ID when it appeals to the supernatural does neither.
Furthermore, when the so-called irreducible complexity of the
bacterial flagellum is disproved so is God, pleasing Richard Dawkins
to no end.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 10 22:37:34 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 10 2006 - 22:37:34 EDT