>
> > Dawkins writes, "Darwin made it possible
> >to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." If Darwinism requires intelligent
> >direction, then Dawkins couldn't make that statement.
>
He may be mistaken whether or not Darwinism requires intilligent
direction. Arguably, the reason that Dawkins can say this was/is
because of Christians' (and Dawkins) belief that the argument from
design is synonymous with Christianity. In my opinion, Christians who
affirm the logic of Dawkins statement by disputing only whether there
is detectable design or not, implicitly affirm Dawkins' belief that Jesus is
irrelevant to the question of God's existence.
The damage to orthoxy in Darwin's time, was arguably set up by
Christians' acceptance of William Paley's "proof" of God's existence
through the argument from design as being Christianity (Paley coined
the watchmaker argument that Dawkins exploits in The Blind WAtchmaker)
which they thought was a "silver bullet". For example, if I recall
correctly, knowledge of Paley was more important than knowledge of the
bible in examinations for the priesthood at Cambridge. (Dembski's
wistful look back to Paley in "Intelligent Design" concerns
me).
The process might be something like this: 1) Paley said that design in
nature indicated a benevolent God. Darwin produced a plausible
alternative. Christians found the proof gone. Chistians who had built
faith on a sandy foundation that did not involve Jesus lost their
foundation.
Rather than rebuild a sandy foundation, lets build on the rock and not
go hankering after silver bullets.
Interestingly, Dembski in "Intelligent Design" looks wistfully back to
Paley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 16:15:51 EDT