> George Murphy says,
> > & I, as a Christian "methodological naturalist" struggle to
> >understand why Christian ID proponents cannot see that that there may be
> >significant _theological_ arguments for MN.
> and
> >The idea that God voluntarily limits his action
> >to what can be accomplished through natural processes (which are God's
> >creation) is what Barbour (_Religion in an Age of Science_) calls a
> >"kenotic" view of divine action, & it seems to me that it can be firmly
> >grounded in a theology of the cross.
>
> Some important issues should be kept distinct, rather than "linked".
...........................
Fine, & I've expressed concerns about ID from a scientific
standpoint. But my point on this post is that ID proponents often can't
seem able to imagine that any Christian could have any theological
reasons for adopting something like MN. There needs to be debate about
the theology, but to imagine that Christian scientists are simply cowed
by atheism, or to pretend that the issue is a purely scientific and
theological one (in spite of the fact that every knows who the
Intelligent Designer is supposed to be) does not help seious discussion
of anything.
George Murphy