Re: Dembski on the backlash against ID

From: bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 20:23:47 EDT

Other aspects of the post have already been discussed. I would note several problems with the last point:

> The issue for us is not how evolution relates to religious faith but whether evolution, as currently understood by science,
is true. If, as we argue, it is not true, then exploring its
religious ramifications constitutes a vain exercise."<

What aspects of evolution? Who are "we"? Behe accepts a large amount of evolution, for example; almost all design advocates are willing to accept something labeled "microevolution". The religious ramifications (if any) of this remains relevant, even if there is some role for intervention-style design of the sort Dembski wants.

The other question is what all is being dismissed as religious ramifications of evolution. Certainly if humans are not evolutionarily connected with other organisms, then evolutionary connection with other organisms does not provide a connection between the incarnation and the redemption of all creation. However, most of the theological arguments raised by Christians who disagree with Dembski are general arguments about the nature of divine interaction with creation, and do not specifically connect to evolution. The claim that methodological naturalism inevitably leads to philosophical naturalism, for example, means that acceptance of the theory of gravity is just as inimical to Christianity as acceptance of evolution.

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

                 
Received on Mon May 3 20:24:50 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 03 2004 - 20:24:50 EDT