Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

I am not unaware that Dembski and Johnson, add Behe, Gonzales, Minnich, Nancey Pearcy and many others, make theological claims about ID, and not just when speaking to their supporters. George's views are sometimes less than charitable when it comes to ID (but very charitable compared to Michael Roberts, clergyman of England!). Yet I agree that the charge of 'selective theology' is surely a trait of the IDM.
   
  But I would rather call what the IDM promotes as 'suggestive theology' than anything concrete. They repeat constantly that ID has implications, ID has implications, ID has implications...and Minnich nicely adds, 'So Be It!' This doesn't mean they have to articulate those implications, especially not to theologians who would demand it from them as a necessary feature of promoting ID's science claims. They will promote 'ID as science' and try building research programs in areas that classic TEists don't often represent (not just for the sake of avoiding the comparatively small number of TE's).
   
  If George wants to discuss the theology of ID, he is free to do so (actually, he has already done so!). There is no lie (nice charge though George!) to the fact that ID contributes to science and religion, science and theology, science and faith dialogue because of those very implications. It is doing much, much more for dialogue than TE is doing, in trying to carve out some un-agreed-upon status quo.
   
  "If the designer is deliberately not defined then what use is it for apologetics?" - Rich
   
  It is good for raising questions about the origins and processes of life, about the source of human consciousness, about complexity and simplicity and what concepts like information and mind and reverse engineering might mean, and about actually being a scientifically-minded person and also a Christian. There's a PhD in the USofA doing a dissertation on the IDM that I just heard about yesterday; these things are indeed provoking discussion not just excuses for rigorous thinking! The fact that a majority of IDists are OEC, accept common descent and some aspects of evolutionary theories is even fun to watch!
   
  It must really ruffle the feathers of you TE folks who had apparently settled into a kind of reserved complacency that the 'contraversy' over evolution was finally settled by accomodationism!
   
  G.A.

   
  p.s. this thread was about 'theological naturalism,' which TE's apparently don't wish to confront

   
  Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

  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

       
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

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 22:59:11 2007