Re: [METAVIEWS] 098: Intelligent Design Coming Clean, Part 2 of 4

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@novagate.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 08:59:31 EST

  • Next message: Wesley R. Elsberry: "Methods of quantifying affect"

    The historic _doctrine_ of creation articulates the belief that the entire
    universe was given its "being" (its existence, character, resources,
    capabilities, potentialities,...) by a Creator. This doctrine says nothing
    about the particulars of the formational history of the created world.

    So, if Darwin says "I had two distinct objects in view; *firstly*, to shew
    that species had not been SEPARATELY created ..."

    And if Darwin says that he has "...done good service in aiding to overthrow
    the dogma of SEPARATE creations..."

    ...then Darwin has said nothing contrary to the _doctrine_ of creation, but
    has made a contribution only to the matter of the particulars of the
    universe's formational history. In his judgment, the dogma of SEPARATE
    creations (pictured as a succession of episodes of form-imposing divine
    intervention) was contradicted by the empirical evidence.

    For Mr. Jones to confuse the dogma of SEPARATE form-imposing interventions
    (a matter of formational history) with the DOCTRINE of creation (a matter of
    the source of the universe's being) is seriously to
    misunderstand/misrepresent the issue.

    Howard Van Till

    PS: If anyone is interested in my response to Dembski's "Intelligent Design
    Coming Clean" see Metaviews #100



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 09:01:55 EST