Re: [Bulk] RE: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Oct 23 2007 - 02:28:04 EDT

The argument with ID is based on its scientific claims, not on
biblical claims as most any Christians would logically accept an
Intelligent Designer.
What my objections are about is ID pretending to be scientific and
finding evidences of 'design' which are mere placeholders for our
ignorance making ID not just scientifically flawed but also infertile
and ID's risky theology of exposing faith to scientific disproof.
Imagine what a field day atheists will have when science unravels the
minor mystery of the evolution of the flagellum.

These are not minor issues but go to the heart of science and Christian faith.

On 10/22/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that technically the arguments for Irreducible Complexity in micro examples like bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms can be debunked and may even be flawed and that may not be an accurate example of ID and it may not be good science, but that does not invalidate the larger macro examples of ID that we see in Rom. 20. That is what I am struggling with. I think the truth lies in here somewhere between these extremes but I have not been able to pinpoint exactly where yet.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 23 02:28:44 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 02:28:44 EDT