ID does not equal Christian Apologetics

William A. Dembski (bill@desiderius.com)
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:18:14 -0600

I'm responding to Allan Harvey's recent post. I think I wasn't clear enough
in my last communication. My point about ID vs. purely natural evolution is
that one or the other is true, and if we affirm the truth of the one
incorrectly, then such a mistake will perforce be inimical to the Christian
faith because the truth of Christianity is embedded in history and nature.
Thus when I wrote:

>is true about nature. If ID is false, then it undercuts Christian faith. If
>evolution that gives no empirical evidence of design is false, then it
>undercuts Christian faith. Christ assumed human nature and thereby assumed

What I meant was that If ID is false but affirmed as true, then that
affirmation will undercut Christian faith (as many in the ASA have been
claiming right along); so too, If evolution that gives no empirical
evidence of design is false but is affirmed as true, then that affirmation
will undercut Christian faith (as Phillip Johnson has been claiming).

Allan Harvey raises the question of signs and their appropriateness as
evidence for God. Thus he cites Jesus who accuses his generation of being
wicked for seeking a sign. I address this question of signs (and indeed
that very passage from the Gospels that Allan cites) in the first chapter
for my forthcoming book INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND
THEOLOGY (IVP, fall 1999).

I need to get back to some of my projects, so I'm going to leave the
discussion here for now. I do want to stress, however, that ID Christian
Apologetics. ID is an empirical study into features of the world that
indicate intelligent causation. No doubt, one can get apologetic mileage
out of ID, but it is first and foremost a stand-alone research program.

Best wishes,
Bill Dembski