At 07:32 AM 3/7/00 -0800, Bert Massie wrote:
>Joel Cannon wrote:
> >
> > I wish to ask a question to Bert and others that moves in a different
> > direction:
> >
> > Was the Grand Canyon (for example) intelligently designed?
> >
>
>I make no claim that each feature on the landscape of the universe was
>ID'ed although some Christians would make an arguement about everything
>being the will of God. Obviously this is not the real issue in the
>debate on origins and I think you know this.
But that *is* a key issue. To talk about ID, we have to know what it
means. Was the Grand Canyon the product of God's Intelligent Design? What
about the Moon, which the Bible specifically tells us God created? As
Christians, I think we have to say that the answer to those questions is
"yes", and remains so even though we have "natural" explanations for their
origin.
So, if we can affirm God as the Designer and Creator of the Grand Canyon
and the Moon despite their "natural" origins, what is *qualitatively*
different about the development of life that makes people insist that only
"unnatural" explanations count as Intelligent Design there? If we could
just admit that it is "OK" for God's creative design to get carried out
naturally in any area (rather than taking a different approach with biology
than we do with geology or astronomy), then we can discuss *how* God
carried out that design without putting ourselves on an apologetic
God-of-the-Gaps tightrope where God's status as Creator depends on whether
or not Behe et al. are correct about their science.
Separately, Bert wrote:
>God's owership is certainly not an issue for me but the need for a God
>(ID) is the issue outside of the brotherhood.
And that is another central issue -- whether "God-of-the-Gaps" apologetics
(which is certainly what one is doing if one is trying to show a "need for
God" to explain nature) is a wise thing. It is certainly dangerous in that
every new thing science explains counts as points against God. Maybe we
should consider the possibility that biology *might not* have detectable
gaps showing a "need for God" (in other words, that God may not show
himself in the way Richard Dawkins and Phil Johnson think he should), and
focus apologetically on the more Biblically justified need for God, namely
humans' sinful state and need for new life in Christ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 14:38:52 EST