Re: Identity of the Designer: was:Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Fri Oct 31 2008 - 15:06:41 EDT

> (Dawkins further argues that the only process that generates complexity from simplicity is evolution).<

Nope, good old entropy can do that (e.g., melting-the change from a
simple, orderly arrangement of molecules to more complicated, less
regular one), as can something governed by a chaotic formula (in the
strict mathematical sense). Funny how Dawkins sounds almost like an
ID advocate-just substitute "intelligence" for "evolution" and you're
quoting Meyers instead.

I have two problems with ID's inability to identify a particular
designer. I firmly agree that ID-type evidence would not indicate a
particular designer. However, ID tries to simultaneously market
itself as
1. THE Christian approach to origins and as
2. a purely scientific approach, compatible with various
(a)theologies, that happens to have found some problems with currently
prevailing scientific models and as
3. merely suggesting that one ought to be able to freely investigate
the question.

This inconsistent self-presentation approach is not honest. Of
course, an individual ID advocate can try to distance himself from the
misuses by others and clearly and consistently espouse a single
position, acknowledging that he disagrees with other ID advocates
about various points, but the standard popular ID has serious problems
on this point.

My other problem is that it seems theologically unsound. The
fundamental dichotomy in humanity is whether you put your trust in
Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord or not. Wells and Dawkins are both on
the wrong side of the divide. Creation science and ID both tend to
put more emphasis on what you believe about the method and/or timing
of creation than on who the creator was. This also relates to ID
seeing itself as battling materialism. Materialism is bad, but it's
not the only bad, and just because one is opposing materialism does
not excuse neglecting other aspects of Christianity-our chief end is
glorifying God, and fighting materialism is good only in so far as we
glorify God in how we do it (though of course, God is skilled and
extremely practiced at bringing good out of what we mess up).
Similarly, the function of Biblical miracles is primarily as signs,
pointing uniquely to God as opposed to any other deity, etc. A
miracle pointing to "generic designer" is out of keeping with this.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 15:07:20 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 31 2008 - 15:07:20 EDT