Re: Review of Darwin's Black Box (fwd)

Bill Dozier (
Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:27:51 -0400

Regarding Re: Review of Darwin's Black Box (fwd), Michael Neely wrote:
>> Still, they are very complex and seemingly
>> defy the "HOW" and "WHY" questions I asked earlier. Intelligent
>> Design offers one possible solution. Advocates of impersonal
>> Darwinian chance often shout loudly about how perfect a solution it
>> is, but are deafeningly silent on the particulars.

ID offers "one possible solution" to what? Could someone please repeat the

Perhaps I am just being dense, but I can't understand exactly what an
"impersonal" process is, considering that God created everything and
continuously causes it to exist.Maybe someone could list for me which are
the "natural" processes that He does not control. It seems to me that the
people making the ID argument are knocking down a strawman. The choice for
Christians is not between God doing unexplainable miracles and a
self-explained universe.

I find the insistence that there be a gap in our knowledge for God to fill
troubling, regardless of the validity or lack thereof of Behe's arguments.
It is not productive for us to argue "HOW" holding preconceived notions in
order to convince people of "WHY". It seems to me that, for any disciplined
mind, this will not work.

I would much rather see us convincing the world about "WHY" and remaining
neutral (theologically) on "HOW".

Bill Dozier Scatterer at Large
"Will fit data for food."