Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

>>> Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> 11/12/2009 2:37 PM >>> writes:

I'd also disagree with this oft-repeated claim that ID's argument is "if
Darwinian evolution didn't do it then God did it!" I see this claimed again
and again, again and again I ask for proof of this claim coming from Behe,
or Dembski, or even the dreaded DI in general.. and again and again it's
never forthcoming.

***

Ted announces that it's now forthcoming.... TRUMPETS, PLEASE!!

I quote from the opening paragraph of the general introduction to "Debating Design," ed. Dembski and Ruse, written by the editors--and therefore (presumably reflecting Bill's views).

"ID is the hypothesis that in order to explain life it is necessary to suppose the action of an unevolved intelligence. One simply cannot explain organisms, those living and those long gone, by reference to normal natural causes or material mechanisms..."

There follows an explicit statement that "it is not necessarily the case that a commitment to ID implies a commitment to a personal God or indeed to any God that would be acceptable to the world's major religions. The claim is simply that there must be something more than ordinary natural causes or material mechanisms, and moreover, that something must be intelligent and capable of bringing about organisms."

I say, Schwarzwald, that despite the disclaimer, the opening sentences *are* tantamount to the claim that evolution didn't do it and that therefore God did it. Honestly and fairly, now, everyone: who in the known universe believes that an "unevolved intelligence" is not something an awfully lot like the "God" of monotheism. I'll put it this way: if that "unevolved intelligence" ain't "God," then God needs to find out who that man behind the curtain really is.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 14:55:00 2009