Re: Phil Johnson

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 18:15:34 EDT

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "RE: Phil Johnson"


    But why only seek these gaps in biology? Why not in cosmology also? The
    supporters of ID have never come clean or even answered this question. In the end
    it is an argument based on ignorance. We can't explain it, so it must be God.
    This is not the God of the Bible, the God who makes the winds blow, the sun shine,
    and the rain fall. Why don't we seek gaps in meteorology and astronomy so as to
    lead people to God?



    "Moorad Alexanian" wrote:

    > X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
    > Sender:
    > Precedence: bulk
    > It is not a proof that will force people into belief but a dead end to
    > scientific pursuit. It is not inconceivable that there can be a proof that
    > essentially invalidates the claims of evolutionary theory. Isn't that in
    > essence what the ID movement is all about? I am toying with the notion that a
    > genuine scientific search for answers becomes so fruitless that it leads to
    > belief. Moorad
    > >===== Original Message From "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <> =====
    > >On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:46:21 -0400 "Moorad
    > >Alexanian<>" <> writes:
    > >> As I wrote you can do some intellectual gymnastics and reconcile your
    > >> theology
    > >> with evolutionary theory. I am not ready to do that yet. However,
    > >> within the
    > >> context of a scientific theory, it is hard to reach such a position
    > >> that those
    > >> proposing it will throw up their hands and say there must be a God.
    > >> One must
    > >> have a sort of Godel type theorem negating the possibility of
    > >> evolutionary
    > >> theory in order for all scientists to discard it and become
    > >> believers. I do
    > >> not think that is possible for otherwise there is no need of faith
    > >> which goes
    > >> contrary to the nature of God. Moorad
    > >>
    > >>
    > >Moorad,
    > >I'm having trouble with this. How can there be a proof that will coerce
    > >belief in God? Again, you confuse a scientific theory with denying the
    > >existence of the deity, when the problem is with the atheism, materialism
    > >and scientism which are not part of science at all.
    > >Dave

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 17:59:46 EDT