Re: skepticism

Murphy (
Wed, 09 Oct 1996 07:20:35 -0400

Glenn Morton wrote:
> Aw shucks, Allan Harvey beat me to this point but I will post it anyway, I
> have one different twist.
> Paul Arveson Wrote:
> >
> >This reminds me of the argument that was used by ICR in response to Miller's
> >chemistry experiment that formed amino acids using only simple gases,
> >electricity and a water trap. The rebuttal was that the experiment was
> >man-made, therefore it was an example of intelligent design.
> >
> >Such an argument can be made against any laboratory experiment, right? That
> >means that NO experiment can rule out intelligent design as a possibility. Or
> >conversely, it implies that intelligent design is a non-falsifiable notion.
> >
> That is why I have always asked the Intelligent design advocates, like Mike
> Behe, to give a definition of design which can be agreed to by all. The
> problem is that there is none. We either believe in design or we don't.

Yes, but _what_ design do we believe in? As far as I know,
there has been little reflection in this context by Christian
theologians on what can legitimately be said about God's design for the
on the basis of the Bible and Christian tradition. Much of what
passes for theological discussion is feeble natural theology a la
Paley. Ephesians 1-4 and Colossians 1 provide considerably better