Allan Harvey wrote:
<< Once you let God-of-the-Gaps theology in,
it eats up everything :-) >>
Just a note here: Ted Peters refers to ID as more of a
"God of the Gaps" strategy. It's rather informative
article which can be found at:
http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/tdavis/gaps.htm
for those of you severely pressed for time, this a central point....
Abbreviations:
MN = Methodological Naturalism
GG = God of the Gaps
ID = well ok..... Intel Designed
"It is important to distinguish between a GG theology and a GG strategy.
As we noted above, advocates of ID believe that God is active always and
everywhere in a variety of ways, including (for the most part) working
through natural processes. It is both inaccurate and unfair to call this a
GG theology 'which is in my view a form of deism' imply because they
believe that God sometimes acts in ways that cannot be described
naturalistically. On the other hand, they believe that such extraordinary
divine activity must be postulated as a scientific explanation to account
for certain phenomena when MN fails, and that the failure of MN itself
provides one of the strongest arguments available for the existence of
God. This is, in my opinion, properly described as a GG strategy, though it
is not based on a GG theology. "
it is righteousness by Faith, not works
by Grace alone do we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 19:52:09 EDT