Re: [NEWS] Press Release: Dembski attacks Pennock...defending Christianity w/o reference to anything Christian

From: Joel Cannon (
Date: Wed Jan 09 2002 - 13:54:27 EST

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: [NEWS] Press Release: Dembski attacks Pennock and MIT Press"

    > From: John W Burgeson <>
    > Sender:
    > Precedence: bulk

    Regarding Steve Schafersma, Burgy wrote

    > In conversation, he expressed real bewilderment
    > that the TEs could cling to a religion which had so little (he may have
    > said "none") evidence for it except wishful thinking.

    It is mildly troubling that Steve Schafersma thinks this way
    concerning evidence. Schafersma, Dawkins, etc.'s real problem is the
    belief that one can meaningfully discuss the reality of God apart from
    Jesus and the history of Israel. Schafersma only believes on the
    basis of evidence. What is the evidence that Schafersma's evidence is
    appropriate for "detecting" God?

    What is truly troubling is that Dembski affirms Schafersma's belief
    that Jesus does not constitute meaningful evidence for the reality of
    God (evidenced in the quote, which would have no place in Dembski's
    book if he did not agree with it---it is stated more explicitly
    elsewhere). For both, the only evidence for God is evidence for
    interruption of the cause-effect laws (miracle?) that God himself
    created. They disagree only on interpreting fossils, DNA, and genetics.

    Dembski seeks to justify and Schafersma seeks to condemn Christianity
    without reference to anything Christian.

    > He said he would
    > probably not choose to hire, or even work with, a scientist if he were a
    > theist, anymore than he would hire a plumber who approached his job
    > looking for supernatural causes to why the toilet was stopped up. He
    > genuinely could not understand how a person could be, at one time, a
    > theist and a scientist.

    You had the conversation, but I think your recollection of the barb's
    object may not be accurate. It was, I believe, a statement regarding
    intelligent design's attitude of proclaiming gaps to be the action of
    God rather than continuing to find reasons to eliminate the gaps. As I
    understand him, he would (tongue in cheek) be worried that the plumber
    would not continue to look for natural causes for the toilets

    Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
    Physics Department |
    Washington and Jefferson College |
    Washington, PA 15301 |

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 13:48:19 EST