[asa] Why I believe ID is theologically dangerous

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 06:52:24 EDT

I believe that ID, unfortunately, has given the necessary ammo to its
arch-enemy 'atheism', allowing atheists to argue that the God
hypothesis is one of low probability. In other words, not only is
their Gap methodology an affront to scientific inquiry, but also
fraught with dangers when it comes to issues of faith.
By pretending that ID proposes methodologies allowing one to
scientifically detect 'design' and thus a 'designer', ID has opened
up the concept of 'design' and worse, 'designer' to scientific
inquiry, and thus to falsification.
Dawkins' recent arguments about the low probability of the God
hypothesis have been strengthened and given relevance by ID.
Personally, I find it ironic that a movement which has arisen to a
large extent out of frustrations with and fears of the 'atheistic
materialistic' approach to science, has handed a powerful rebuttal to
its own enemies.

I wonder why Denyse and Dembski seem to hold ASA members and ASA
responsible for the recent successes of atheism when in fact it is ID
which may be largely responsible.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 4 06:53:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 06:53:13 EDT