[...]
SE: This accommodation works when Cliff can keep his public and private lives
separated. However tensions arise when Christians (like Dembski) appear
who have reached a different accommodation between their science and
their Christian faith, namely rejecting the materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy underlying modern science in general, and biological science in
particular.
That Dembski incorporates his Christian belief in his science is nothing new.
For many scientists its quite easy to accomodate faith and science. That
Dembski and others reject a working philosophy that neither admits nor deny
his Designer seems somewhat unnecessary. Especially since they offer no
working alternative.
[...]
SE:
The tensions get even worse when those Christians (like Dembski), argue
that there is independent scientific evidence from nature for design and
hence those scientific positions which claim there is no design, ie.
Darwinism, are false.
Steve is still confused about what Darwinism claims and does not claim.
Perhaps he wants to claim that Darwinists claim that there is no design? But
Steve also quoted that design can incorporate from religion to evolutionary
mechanisms. So does Darwinism claims that there is no design when design is
defined as such? Indeed the weakness of ID is that it has reduced the meaning
of design by including natural forces as the designer. As such I doubt that
Darwinism claims that there is no such design. Of course this also assumes
that there is a reliable detector of design, something yet to be shown.
Furthermore what problem is there for Chris and other scientists when ID
cannot exclude natural forces as the designer?
Nothing. Other than the obvious question: So what is the value of ID then if
it cannot exclude and can include anything?
[...]
SE: That is, they should ask themselves whether the fact that they spend
their
time and energy attacking their fellow Christians who are arguing against
anti-Christian philosophies like materialism, naturalism and Darwinism, and
defending their atheist/agnostics colleagues who hold those philosophies, is
not good evidence that they themselves have in fact been taken captive by
those "hollow and deceptive" philosophies?
You seem to be still confused about Darwinism. Darwinism and the underlying
foundation of science are not anti-Christian and I believe it is important
that we Christians do spend our time straightening out our fellow Christians
who argue against this. Perhaps that is the evidence Steve is looking for?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 14:08:28 EDT