George Murphy wrote:
> The issue is not one of "evidence versus faith". It is, rather, a question of
> what sort of evidence motivates & is supportive of faith. Distinctively Christian faith
> depends upon revelation (or "special revelation", though the phrase can be misleading
> & the concept of "general revelation" is questionable). This is God's activity in the
> history of Israel which culminates in Christ. Such revelation differs via the "scandal
> of particularity" from the type of evidence admissible in the natural science, for that
> evidence is available, in principle, to everyone at all times. Revelation isn't, though
> we have witnesses to it.
> Scientific evidence can be relevant to Christian faith and theology when it is
> viewed in the light of revelation but it is much more problematic (though very popular)
> to suggest that it can provide any basis for faith apart from revelation. IMO Barth was
> right in rejecting any such claim for _independent_ natural theology, though he went too
> far in saying that science was of no relevance for the doctrine of creation.
George appears to claim that scientific evidence provides no basis for [distinctively
Christian] faith apart from [special] revelation. (Or do you mean that scientific evidence
provides no basis for faith simpliciter apart from some sort of special revelation?) Is
anyone claiming that scientific evidence provides a basis for *distinctively Christian*
faith apart from special revelation? I don't think even Aquinas would have gone that far. I
have never heard an ID-proponent make such a claim. Obviously some apologists make use of ID
claims to promote Christian belief, but it does not follow that ID claims provide a basis
for a distinctively Christian faith apart from special revelation. If evidence of
intelligent design is detected in nature, no theological conclusions can be drawn apart from
revelation, for detecting intelligent design in nature tells us nothing about the identity
of the designer (apart from special revelation). Abuse does not nullify proper use;
therefore even if some people misuse ID by overstating its theological implications, that
does not nullify its proper use.
> IMO the ID movement would be much less objectionable _theologically_ if its
> practitioners would say that belief in ID is based on revelation, and that they are
> seeking scientific evidence supportive of that belief.
That is exactly what ID is not. Take SETI for example. Do the SETI researchers base their
belief that ID is detectable on revelation?? Obviously not. Since an atheist can believe
that intelligent design is detectable in nature and detected in nature, (i.e. an atheist can
be an ID proponent) ID is not dependent upon revelation. Is there a theological problem with
the SETI researchers' belief that intelligent design is detectable in nature? If not, then
what are your *theological* objections to the ID thesis that intelligent design is
detectable in nature and detected in nature? It appears that you conflate ID proper with the
use some ID proponents and Christian apologists make of it.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 15:25:25 EDT