[asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID

From: Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu>
Date: Sun May 31 2009 - 19:52:33 EDT

Cameron,

I have nothing more to add concerning the approach that Owen Gingerich takes
in "God's Universe." I find it both eloquent and faithful, whereas you are
not impressed and want to have a stronger role for natural theology here.
(I think this is what you are saying and invite correction if not.)

That's a basic disagreement, and IMO a fair one. Most TE advocates would
say that, if there is a role for natural theology (and Owen thinks there is,
devoting an earlier chapter to that topic), it's a modest one with limited
scope, and primarily in the realm of metaphysics rather than science (though
science of course can be used in the arguments). I realize that "Design" as
used by ID advocates is not understood by those advocates to be a type of
natural theology -- the natural theological step is separate from the design
inference (which is scientific, in the opinion of ID advocates). Whereas,
TEs typically think that "design" inevitably entails theological inferences
and goes well beyond science.

Have I put this fairly?

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 31 19:52:53 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 31 2009 - 19:52:53 EDT