Re: Phil Johnson

From: R. Joel Duff (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 21:03:47 EDT

  • Next message: Tim Ikeda: "Not [Re: Phil Johnson]"

    At 08:15 AM 10/2/01 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
    >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
    >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?

    Exactly! I've raised this exact point in the past several times to no
    avail. Others have raised it also and yet I can't remember any specific
    responses from the ID community to this point other than possibly that
    there are bigger fish and when they become established they look into this
    area. That's pretty weak.

    Why not postulate gaps in geology. Could not the Cambrian explosion be
    explained by ID as easily by intervention and preservation (or lack of
    preservation) of particular layers of rock rather than extraordinary events
    in the biology of the organisms? This focus solely on biology as the
    focus of God's creation by the ID camp has always mystified me.

    >"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
    Dr. R. Joel Duff, Assistant Professor
    Dept. of Biology, ASEC 185
    Campus Mail 3908
    University of Akron
    Akron, OH 44325-3908
    Office: 330-972-6077

    "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability
    to uninformed opinion."

    Reporter John Lawton speaking to the American Association of Broadcast
    Journalists in 1995

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 21:00:51 EDT