On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:02 AM, "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2) Gregory is apparently unaware that Dembski & Johnson have made
> explicitly theological claims about ID when speaking to their
> supporters, through they have been unwilling to engage in
> theological dialogue with those who disagree with them. What I have
> said is that there are theological issues connected with ID (& that
> would be the case whether or not its supporters had raised them),
> that they ought to be discussed openly, & I have presented my own
> theological arguments. The unwillingness of IDers to discuss
> theological issues gives the lie to Gregory's claim that they have
> contributed to science-theology dialogue. The fact that a lot of
> ill-informed people have latched onto the slogan "Intelligent
> Design" on school boards &c is not indicative of serious dialogue
> but of the fact that such people have simply found one more excuse
> to hold on to their preconceptions.
It was this unwillingness to discuss theology at all -- let alone
debate it -- that got me banned from UcD. If the designer is
deliberately not defined then what use is it for apologetics?
Rich Blinne
Member ASA
Sent from my iPhone
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 24 14:24:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 24 2007 - 14:24:59 EDT