From: george murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 07:52:27 EDT
Robert Schneider wrote:
Therefore the Christology which Dembski presents in _Intelligent Design:
> The Bridge between Science and Theology_, pp. 205-210 is not likely to be
> presented in the public debate, for it suggests, despite the "bridge"
> language, that all scientific tracking is subordinate to theological
> tracking, in that he argues that "Christ is indispensible to any scientific
> theory" and that "the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only
> be located in Christ." And in the chapter following ("The Act of
> Creation"), in which Dembski contrasts a theistic understanding of causation
> with "the naturalist's understanding of causation" (by "naturalist" he
> surely means Dawkins and not Muir), p. 214, he later states, p. 226,
> speaking of idolatry: "Idolatry turns the creation into the ultimate
> reality. We've seen this before. It's called naturalism. No doubt
> contemporary scientific naturalism is a lot more sophisticated than pagan
> fertility cults, but the difference is superficial. Naturalism is idolatry
> by another name."
> Let me add that I am not unsympathetic to Dembski's Christology. There
> are a number of things he says that I agree with; and a cosmic Christology
> lies at the heart of my own creation theology. And I recognize his
> application of a Pauline (Rom. 1) understanding of idolatry to "naturalism,"
> though I reject his inclusive meaning of this key term that lies at the
> heart of the debate within our own Christian circles: it muddies the
> distinction between a Howard Van Till and a Richard Dawkins. The point I am
> making is that if a theology of creation lies at the heart of ID (and I
> think it does, despite the "bridge" argument that Dembski makes in this
> book), then the latter lays itself open to the rhetorical charge of
> deception if it's proponents fail (or refuse) to make this connection clear
> and assert in the public arena that ID makes no claim about the nature of
> the intelligent designer.
The error in Dembski's christology is certainly not that it
is cosmic or
that it insists that in Christ "all things hold together" (Col.1:17). It is
rather the implicit assumption that this must be true in a way that can be
verified by scientific investigation. Christ must not only hold all things
together but must do it in such a way that science has to take him
Of course this contrasts with the kenotic understanding of Christ in
suggests that Christ _doesn't_ insist on getting credit, holding on to divine
prerogatives &c. The Cosmic Christ is Christ Crucified.
& of course one might argue about the use of kenosis & its implications
but Dembski fails even to note the possibility - e.g., in the appendix
"Objections to Design."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 10 2002 - 13:39:58 EDT