>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.
What exactly do you mean by the design argument? I think this is part of
the problem. A Christian should recognize God's hand in designing all of
creation. The important things he needs to know about God and his
responsibilities towards Him are derived from Scripture, not creation.
However, knowing God from Scripture, he can then recognize His power,
wisdom, care, etc. in creation. You can go to the ant and get wisdom, but
you can also get some bad ideas as far as proper human behavior.
Metaphysical evidence is necessary to figure out that industriousness is
morally good and mindlessly following directions is not ethically good use
of your abilities.
>None of this entails that Johnson's position implies deism with interruptions,
>or
>a rejection of the doctrine of providence. Nor is it even close to
>"macroevolution
>disproves God". Concerning his refusing to endorse some statement about God
>acting
>through evolution, without seeing the exact statement I cannot draw any
>conclusions from his refusal. Concerning his 'ID or mindless process' claim on
>the
>FOTF broadcast, this by no means implies that providence is a mindless process.
>His opponent is naturalism. His claim is simply a logical disjunction that can
>be
>translated to "Mind or no mind". It is not "divine intervention or no mind" and
>thus excluding providence. In his view, naturalism (i.e. no mind) is
>insufficient;
>therefore, intelligence is required. That is the first disjunction. One we
>acknowledge that mind is required, then a *separate* but subordinate
>disjunction
>(and one that goes beyond the claims of basic ID) has to do with mechanism.
>"[Providence and direct divine action] OR [providence alone]". Neither side of
>this disjunction entails that one's position implies deism with interruptions,
>or
>a rejection of the doctrine of providence. Where is the principle of charity
>here?
>This palpable disdain for and casual misrepresentation of ID and its proponents
>isn't conducive to objectivity and understanding, even if ID theorists are all
>wrong.
It is likely that Johnson does not deliberately reject the doctrine of
providence. However, the identification of methodological naturalism as
implying metaphysical naturalism denies the doctrine of providence. This
also is getting back to the question of how you define ID; what I have seen
seems to define design as direct divine action.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 15:07:33 EDT