Adrian Teo wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SteamDoc@aol.com [mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:29 PM
> To: ateo@whitworth.edu
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: So far, new genetics leave plenty of room for
> faith
>
> I hope I have misinterpreted Meyer. But in the context of
> the article (which
> was about whether discoveries about the human genome
> threatened religion), it
> certainly *seems* like Meyer is saying that "evidence of
> real design" (as
> opposed to, say, Jesus) is the key to "the God question."
> Maybe this
> impression is the fault of the reporter and not Meyer.
>
> However, I would bet that most people, both in the church
> and outside, see
> such statements as promoting God-of-the-Gaps ("Christianity
> isn't false after
> all because the ID people are showing evolution isn't true
> after all")
> theology, which is an abomination. I find it frustrating
> that nobody in the
> ID movement ever seems willing to come out and say that such
> theology is
> wrong and is a misuse of their work. Unless they recognize
> that the church
> is taking their work as a sandy foundation on which to build
> an unsound
> semi-deistic theology (with its apologetic basis on gaps
> instead of Christ)
> and make efforts to reverse this, I fear that (even if their
> work is
> worthwhile from a scientific or philosophical standpoint)
> they are doing more
> harm than good.
>
> I also fear that nobody in the ID movement ever speaks
> against "God of the
> Gaps" theology because their most prominent popularizer
> appears to hold it.
>
>
> [My response] Allan, I fully agree that a God-of-the-Gaps
> theology is how it comes out to the general public, and yet
> the appeal is there because many Christians do hold on to
> this theology. Steve talks alot about bringing the God
> hypothesis back onto the table based on the Inference to the
> Best Explanation (IBE) approach. According to him, the IDers
> are simply asking that the God hypothesis be given equal
> weight as any other scientific/naturalistic explanations,
> and allow the evidence to point us towards the best
> explanation, even if that involves God/intelligent designer.
>
"Asking that the God hypothesis be given equal weight as any
other scientific/naturalistic explanation" comes very close to seeing
God as a causal agent of the same type as things in the natural world.
That is a serious error. God is not a being alongside other beings in
the world, and divine operations are not the same as the operations of
creatures. As Barth said, "One does not speak about God by speaking
about man [or, I would add, any other creature] in a loud voice."
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 20 2001 - 14:43:56 EST