>Re: >Re: Science and Theology

Eduardo G. Moros (moros_eg@castor.wustl.edu)
Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:33:18 -0600

Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>
> Hi George,
>
> I see your point clearly now. Yes, I agree that it is a danger to fall into
> that pattern. We can know of God from Nature only as much as given in Romans
> 1, but this knowledge is not a "saving" knowledge; in fact, it is a
> "condemning" knowledge if the person does not acknowledge God as explained in
> Romans 1. Saving knowledge only comes through His "personal" revelation in
> His Word. ID can help a Christian in his/her faith and it could possibly be a
> evangelistic tool, but by itself it would not convince anybody. However, as
> used by the IDers in fighting the philosophical ramifications of a purely
> naturalistic (materialistic) evolution, I believe ID is great, it definitely
> is a challenge to Darwinism.
>
> Salu2
>
> Eduardo
>
> George Murphy wrote:
> >
> > Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> > >
> > > > "The heavens declare the glory of God" to the psalmist because
> > > > he has believed God's revelation in "the law of the Lord". vv.1-6 are
> > > > incomplete without vv.7-14.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Exactly, so what's the problem? Methodological naturalists often assume the
> > > non-existance of a Designer because their are guided by their philosophical
> > > naturalism. I see no problem in doing or understanding science by treating
> > > nature "as designed" (methodological theism could be the term) because I'm
> > > guided by theism.
> >
> > OK, no problem as long as we recognize that. What is
> > problematic is, as I put it earlier, the idea of an _independent_
> > natural theology - the idea that we can learn about God simply from
> > observation of the world & our reason independently of God's historical
> > revelation to Israel which culminates in Jesus. The argument from
> > design, as it is usually presented, falls into that category.
> > George Murphy
Hi George,

I see your point clearly now. Yes, I agree that it is a danger to fall into
that pattern. We can know of God from Nature only as much as given in Romans
1, but this knowledge is not a "saving" knowledge; in fact, it is a
"condemning" knowledge if the person does not acknowledge God as explained in
Romans 1. Saving knowledge only comes through His "personal" revelation in
His Word. ID can help a Christian in his/her faith and it could possibly be a
evangelistic tool, but by itself it would not convince anybody. However, as
used by the IDers in fighting the philosophical ramifications of a purely
naturalistic (materialistic) evolution, I believe ID is great, it definitely
is a challenge to Darwinism.

Salu2

Eduardo

George Murphy wrote:
>
> Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >
> > > "The heavens declare the glory of God" to the psalmist because
> > > he has believed God's revelation in "the law of the Lord". vv.1-6 are
> > > incomplete without vv.7-14.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly, so what's the problem? Methodological naturalists often assume the
> > non-existance of a Designer because their are guided by their philosophical
> > naturalism. I see no problem in doing or understanding science by treating
> > nature "as designed" (methodological theism could be the term) because I'm
> > guided by theism.
>
> OK, no problem as long as we recognize that. What is
> problematic is, as I put it earlier, the idea of an _independent_
> natural theology - the idea that we can learn about God simply from
> observation of the world & our reason independently of God's historical
> revelation to Israel which culminates in Jesus. The argument from
> design, as it is usually presented, falls into that category.
> George Murphy