& I, as a Christian "methodological naturalist" struggle to
understand why Christian ID proponents cannot see that that there may be
significant _theological_ arguments for MN. Van Till's "functional
integrity" & what I've called "chiasmic cosmology" are 2 such examples.
I would also cite _some_ themes of Luther, Pascal, Barth, & Bonhoeffer
as contributing to them (though I am am not simply trying to coopt these
people as modern MNs). The idea that God voluntarily limits his action
to what can be accomplished through natural processes (which are God's
creation) is what Barbour (_Religion in an Age of Science_) calls a
"kenotic" view of divine action, & it seems to me that it can be firmly
grounded in a theology of the cross. (Note that the word _kenosis_
comes from Phil2:5-11!)
Now our theology & our philosophy of science influence one
another. Certainly the successes of science have encouraged theologians
to incorporate something like MN - cf. Bonhoeffer's references to
Weizsacker. But this is a matter of encouraging a theme already in the
theological tradition, not an alien idea. & in turn, such a theology
suggests that we should encourage science to understand the world as
thoroughly as possible without explicit reference to God.
> But please: no more sermons about the necessity of methodological
This is precisely the problem. ID proponents seem curiously
unwilling to wrestle with the theological questions involved here.
Maybe they need to hear some _sermons_ - not lectures about a scientific
or philosophical need for naturalism, but an adequate proclamation of
the God revealed in Christ crucified as the creator. A sermon on
Is.45:15 would be in order.
George L. Murphy