Jonathan Clarke wrote:
> Thank you Keith for posting this extraordinarily candid and illuminating answer
> from PJ. Where (and how) did you get it? A citation would be helpful as this is
> well worth adding to my collection of PJs pronouncements. Sections that
> particularly caught my eye.
My thanks also to Keith & to Jon for his analysis. One other point: Johnson
talks about the roles of scientists and lawyers (= logicians by his logic) in the
debate, but never refers to theologians. I.e., he apparently doesn't think any
training in thinking about God or divine action is necessary in order to talk about
creation. This doesn't mean that theology will be absent from his discussion because
he does want to talk refer to "God" sometimes, but his theology will be simply
philosophy dressed up with some Sunday School Bible stories.
& this is the pattern displayed by the whole ID movement - an apparent lack of
interest in any real understanding of the character or actions of the God who is
supposedly being defended against naturalism. I find this very strange. When we do
get some glimpses of attention to religious matters, such as Wells' Unificationist
theology, they are not encouraging.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 22 2001 - 07:39:53 EDT