Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

Randy Isaac wrote:
------------------------
"Do you, Jack, assert that Christian faith logically necessitates that
design in nature (not necessarily design by the Christian God, just design by some
intelligence) can be perceivable only through the eyes of faith, and can
never be established by scientific means? Or do you concede that someone can be
a fully orthodox Christian, holding a "correct" view of creation, and yet
believe that at least some parts of God's design can be demonstrated by
reasoning from scientific data? I am not asking whether you agree that design is
scientifically detectable; I am asking you if a person can believe in the
possibility of design detection, and still be 100% orthodox in Christian doctrine?"
 
Perhaps a modification of the question could also be enlightening in
differentiating ID and EC:

Is it a necessary corollary of the orthodox Christian doctrine of creation
that God's action of design in nature must be detectable in some way through
unique patterns in nature (beyond the very existence of nature, its fine-tuned
characteristics, and the comprehensibility of nature)?
---------------------------
 
Allan comments:
YES!
Randy's question to me comes much closer to nailing the key difference
between most EC people and most ID people.
 
The first question describes a position (scientific detectability of God's
design not possible and/or believing in the possibility is unorthodox) that may
 be held by a few people who hold to EC, but certainly not by most. There
are certainly many (such as George Murphy) who argue that sound theology would
lead one to suspect that scientific evidence of the Designer is not likely,
and maybe even that looking for it is not worthwhile, but that is not the same
 as ruling it out completely.
 
Randy's second question, in contrast, seems to me to get at the heart of the
ID movement, and the main problem that I and many others have with it, in
its use of the word "must." I don't mind if ID people say "this is *possible*
and we are looking for evidence" or even if they claim to have found such
evidence (although I mind when the claimed evidence is flimsy as is the usual
case). What I DO mind very much is the attitude that seems to dominate the ID
movement (there are probably exceptions) which makes such scientific
detection of God a theological *necessity* on which the truth of theism depends (I
and others have referred to this as "God-of-the-Gaps theology").
 
If the ID movement would only be willing to disown "must be detectable" and
replace it with "might be detectable" in Randy's question (and communicate
that distinction in their popular propaganda, as too many in the churches have
the bad theology that no gaps entails no God), my opinion of them would be
much less unfavorable.
 
Allan (ASA Member)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 29 22:39:49 2008