In a message dated 7/4/00 5:52:35 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
Dawsonzhu@aol.com writes (quoting Ted Davis):
> 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. "
Thanks for mentioning that important distinction. I make (probably more
long-windedly) a similar point in an essay called "What Does 'God of the
Gaps' Mean" which is on the Web at:
http://www.shawangunk.com/scichr/essays/gaps.html
I am not convinced that the ID movement does not have a large amount of GG
theology in it (a problem is that they never talk about their theology). But
let's leave that issue for the moment.
An important consideration is that a GG *strategy* tends to have the effect
of promoting the abomination of GG *theology* within the church (and also
outside the church, as people think becoming a Christian requires disavowing
evolution or other findings of science). This does not necessarily mean the
GG strategy is wrong. But it does make it incumbent on the proponents of the
GG strategy to make it clear to all who hear them that their work should not
be extrapolated into GG theology with its denial of providence and its sandy
apologetical foundation. Their total failure to provide such caveats,
whether it is through negligence or because of their own acceptance of GG
theology, is encouraging large segments of the church in a march toward a
theological cliff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 20:23:19 EDT