Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 18:53:39 EST

I'd agree in a qualified way. If there's an 'unevolved intelligence' - or
put even more simply, a creator, full stop - then at the very least atheism
and naturalism (at least the old naturalism that had some content, however
ridiculous) is incorrect. And I'd certainly agree that if this 'unevolved
intelligence' has a hand in evolution, life, the universe, or really just
about any aspect of nature, then atheism is false and some form of (however
broad) deism or theism is correct.

Here's the problem. That unevolved intelligence wipes atheism/naturalism off
the table, sure. But it does not prove the Christian God. It does not prove
the God of classical theism. It does not prove monotheism. It does not prove
a good God. It does not prove an eternal God, an omnipotent God, an
omniscient God... etc. ID alone simply can't you get you to any of these,
not even within striking distance. Indeed, in another thread on this very
day we have Rich Blinne suggesting that the God Behe proves is not the
Christian God (I reject his argument about God's intentions, etc, but the
fact that he's making it is instructive here.)

Even the example you provided (apparently the view of Dembski himself)
supports this view: He denies it's necessarily a personal God, the God of
any major religion, etc. Now, if you want to say that any unevolved
intelligence (particularly ones responsible for nature or creative acts) is
a g/God, that's fine. But look at just what that range of 'gods' can
possibly be: From full-blooded theism (whether Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, or otherwise) to deism to Zeus to Q from Star Trek.

I say this nullifies John Walley's claim that ID seeks to prove God through
science such that faith is not required. My response is that what ID can
prove - and even what ID proponents *admit* is the extent of what ID can
infer - is, while disastrous to atheism and standard naturalism, utterly
insufficient to render faith unnecessary, especially where Christianity is
concerned. Faith is still required and essential for Christianity even if
atheism is made utterly untenable.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ted Davis <> wrote:

> Well, Schwarzwald, in a word: Yes.
> At least in this context: the context is how the universe came to have the
> order we discern, and an "unevolved intelligence" in this context can only
> be a creator. Would you disagree?
> Ted
> >>> Schwarzwald <> 11/12/2009 3:24 PM >>>
> Ted,
> Before I dig into a greater reply on this, I have to ask: Are you telling
> me
> that any "unevolved intelligence" would by definition be God?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 18:54:05 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 18:54:13 EST