Allan,
May I suggest that perhaps you have misunderstood Steve. I have had several
conversations with him, and with regard to that quote, I believe that the
enterprise of science needs to allow back on the table the possibility of
God. It was not meant to be a theological claim. He simply wishes to see
scientists consider God as a possibility.
Blessings,
Adrian.
-----Original Message-----
From: SteamDoc@aol.com [mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:09 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: So far, new genetics leave plenty of room for faith
The story Moorad posted quotes Intelligent Design advocate Steven Meyer:
"What we're doing is saying ... what if naturalism isn't true?" Meyer says.
"We want to go back to that great 19th-century question and say: Maybe they
were wrong.... If there's evidence of real design, then the God question may
be back on the table."
This provides another illustration of the theological problem many of us
have
with much of the ID movement. The implication of Meyer's statement is that,
without "evidence of real design" (a term which needs definition, but by
which he probably means scientifically detectible "fingerprints" of
extra-natural intervention), "the God question" is decided in the negative.
I have two problems with this.
First, Christian theology recognizes God's sovereignty over nature, so that
God can work (and often does, though perhaps not always) without leaving
"fingerprints." It is therefore theologically wrong (the God-of-the-Gaps
error) to say that the sort of "evidence of real design" Meyer et al. think
God should have left is a necessary condition for theism.
Second and maybe more important, Meyer implies that "evidence of real
design"
is the key to "the God question." Funny, as a Christian I have always
thought Jesus Christ was the key testimony with regard to "the God
question."
When ID material implies "design" is *the* key issue with regard to the
truth of Christianity, I wonder if they are in some sense denying Jesus.
After all, Jesus said "He who has seen me has seen the Father," not "He who
has seen irreducible complexity has seen the Father." [Thanks to Joel Cannon
and Ted Davis for inspiring my thoughts on this second point.]
IF convincing ID evidence is ever found, it may well serve to put "the God
question" back on the table for some who have answered it in the negative.
But anybody who has taken God off the table on the basis of science has
employed a flawed metaphysics that fails to allow God to work via "natural"
processes. It might be more fruitful to point out the flaw in their
metaphysics (and then, of course, to point them to Christ) than to base
apologetics on the sandy foundation of being able to detect evidence of God
having worked by means he may not have chosen to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 12:26:05 EST