In a message dated 9/3/01 1:42:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
burgy@compuserve.com writes:
> To David Snoke:
>
> I found your article in PERSPECTIVES easier to read than the draft you
> sent around a few months ago. Well done. I hope it stirs discussion.
>
> Burgy
>
While I've already gone a couple of e-mail rounds on this with David, the one
observation I would make for teh ASA list is that it is important to
distinguish between two things:
1) God-of-the-Gaps REASONING, in which Gaps are seen as *positive evidence*
for the supernatural. While I might differ with him on a few things, David
does a good job arguing for this.
2) God-of-the-Gaps THEOLOGY, in which Gaps are seen as a *theological
necessity* because "natural" explanations are seen as entailing the absence
of God. From the standpoint of Christian theology, this is an abominable
denial of God's sovereignty over nature and ability to create in a
fingerprint-less way if He so chooses.
I think there is a common misconception that those of us who dislike the
"Intelligent Design" movement have a fundamental objection to #1. That may
be true for some, but for most of us I think the main objection is that we
see a lot of #2, both in the movement itself (such as the way Phil Johnson
appears to say that the truth of theism *requires* the sort of scientifically
detectible "fingerprints" he is advocating) and even more so in the way the
movement is perceived by people in the church ("Christianity isn't false
after all because evolution isn't true after all.") The ID movement would
win a lot more friends in these circles if they would take a forceful stand
against God-of-the-Gaps theology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : Mon Sep 03 2001 - 19:27:24 EDT