As I noted earlier, I am sorry to have taken so long to respond. I have
been on a much needed vacation overseas.
At 12:06 AM 09/17/1999 EDT, MikeBGene@aol.com wrote:
>Although this is a ridiculously simple example, I think Glenn is arguing
>that God is not bamboozled by chance. He knows it inside and out and
>thus can still use chance to bring about a determined event. I must
>confess that I like this argument (assuming I understand Glenn correctly).
You do understand me correctly
>Another possible argument is that God can survey all logically possible
>universes and bring into existence any one He chooses. He thus
>actualized this reality which happens to have spawned humans through
>chance and natural selection because it spawned humans. The
>theological upside of these arguments is that they stress God's
>omniscience and omnipotence (as Glenn notes). The theological
>downside is that the tend to turn God into an aloof sky god. ID,
>on the other hand, emphasizes God's intimacy, but de-emphasizes
>his power.
>
>Do you think it might be possible that *both* ID and TE are true
>and that the dispute is a function of our ever so limited ability to
>comprehend and detect reality? Just a thought.
I think there is also a disagreement on where the design takes place. Most
IDs as I understand them want very little evolution (I know Behe gives
lipservice to evolution but he then seems to argue that evolution can't do
it). IDs seem to want design at the species/genus/family levels of biology.
I would place design at the beginning of the universe. He designed
everything right there. It also falls in to line with and makes
understandable the statement in the Bible that Jesus was the lamb slain
from the foundation of the earth.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution