Ted wrote
Suppose we assume (as I have been assuming) that ID generally takes a more
confrontational approach to atheism, the "slam dunk" language I've used; and
that TE is generally less confrontational in responding to atheism, the
"backdoor layup" as I had called it.
I find it puzzling that ID, which as I understand it, does not claim to be able to detect the God of the Bible, only that nature was designed, could be characterized as taking a "slam dunk" approach to atheism. Bill Dembski once said (I'm paraphrasing) that ID could only be a way-station on the way to a Christian commitment, in that ID could only lead an individual to believe that nature was designed.
I also find it puzzling that YEC's and ID's are cooperating. The initial reaction of YEC orgs like ICR was pretty negative, and with good reason: ID did not necessarily lead to the God of the Bible.
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 30 08:02:50 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 08:02:50 EDT