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

I'm a firm believer that the IDM has lost many people from the Christian
faith and disagree that it's doing any "good" at all. Maybe it's stimulated
more scientific research but has entrenched many away from Christianity.
It's very sad, IMO.

W.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian

                http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
<http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/>
Bohemian Adventures Blog * http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
<http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>

The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
<http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/>
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Online Writing Course! Starting Aug 4. Sign Up Online!

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:59 PM
To: Rich Blinne; George Murphy
Cc: Gregory Arago; David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu; Rich Blinne
Subject: 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.
<http://ca.answers.yahoo.com> 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 23:03:42 2007