From: Dave Wallace <>
Date: Sat Jun 09 2007 - 06:49:27 EDT

PvM wrote:
> People, in this case Christians, may come to the conclusion that the
> Flagellum is intelligently designed. However, this can be disproven as
> it is based on our present level of ignorance. Does this mean that ID
> has been disproven? Some may take this stance.

If the individual makes their theology dependent on the truth of ID then
yes I agree that ID would be theologically dangerous as I see nothing in
scripture that supports such a view. However, if one takes ID as simply
trying to follow how God has worked in creation then I fail to see
danger. As best I read Behe in Darwin's Black Box he thinks that the
science in biological evolution is lacking and thus postulates ID.
Johnston on the other hand seems to need something like ID to be true
for theological and or philosophical reasons and I agree this has
considerable danger.

I find health and wealth theology much more dangerous as it seems very
evidently false to scripture. George would probably call such, theology
of glory rather than theology of the cross and I for one find that a
very helpful way to think about it.

On the other hand all Christianity is dangerous in that it could be dis
proven at least theoretically. Convince me that you have found for sure
that Christ never existed and I eventually would give up belief. Some
ministers here in the United Church deny the birth, death and
resurrection of Christ and even the secular press asks why they continue
to belong to a church and so on. I have to agree with the press. (Aside
to Michael yes I know that the resurrection body is not identical to
what was buried although it did have the scars and could eat...)

This morning as I sit in our cottage and look out at Lake Ontario with
the sun lighting the trees on the other side of the bay, I find it hard
not to see God's fingerprints in what he has created. But not in the
sense that ID finds God's fingerprints.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 9 06:51:45 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 09 2007 - 06:51:46 EDT