In a message dated 6/30/00 3:57:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
writes:
> Either nature indicates a designer or it doesn't. One cannot claim that an
> underlying teleology is necessary to explain why things work and then
> disparage
> the design argument. One must either deny that an underlying teleology is
> necessary or accept some form of the design argument. I'm new to this
list,
> so I
> have no idea whether you (or anyone on the list) rejects the claim that an
> underlying teleology is necessary. If you do reject the claim that an
> underlying teleology is necessary, then please ignore this.
I think you have presented a false choice when you say "One must either deny
that an underlying teleology is necessary or accept some form of the design
argument." An underlying teleology is a necessary Christian doctine in the
sense that the Creator's purpose underlies creation. But it is not necessary
that there be an underlying teleology *that is detectible by human science*.
The design argument may fail if the underlying teleology is not within the
grasp of our scientific instruments. It is in making *scientifically
detectible* design a theological necessity (and/or failing to correct the
perception in the church that their work is "showing Christianity isn't false
after all because evolution isn't true after all") that the ID movement goes
astray in my opinion.
Regarding Phil Johnson's position that natural processes do not "count" as
works of God, others can post more quotes, but somebody (Joel?) mentioned a
statement which was posed to him about whether it was theologically "OK" for
God to act naturally through evolution. I suggested the following statement
to him:
>"While I believe the evidence does not support the theory of evolution,
>and while it has been abused as a tool by those pushing an atheist
>agenda, the Christian faith does not suffer if it turns out that
>evolution is true. God can create however He chooses, and is not
>diminished if His work in creation was through 'natural' processes."
The fact that Johnson would not agree to such a statement, which even some ID
proponents on this list thought was agreeable, seems to confirm the claim
that he is unwilling to acknowledge God's ability to do his creative work via
his sovereignty over nature. Dembski opposed the statement in stronger words
than Johnson.
By the way, since Johnson's denomination has come up, his church is
Presbyterian, but PCUSA, not PCA. On the evangelical side of the PCUSA
denomination. I went to the same church when I was in grad school (though I
don't think I met him). Ironically, it was from the pastor of that church
that I first heard the term "God of the Gaps". Just because official
Presbyterian doctrine affirms God's providence does not mean that every
person in the pews understands that God need not show off in a scientifically
detectable way in order to accomplish his work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 00:15:58 EDT