Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mailbox: A reader writes from an island in Mediterraean to ask,

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Don’t you think Evolution excludes God from being the Creator? How can you support it them being a Catholic?

After I got over raging at that guy for living in a place that is actually warm and sunny (how dare he?), I replied:

Friend, thank you for writing, and apologies for any delay in getting back to you.

Essentially, I think God can create however he wants.

He can use direct creation and various types of evolution, including Darwin’s natural selection. Or other methods beyond my ability to imagine.

He’s God. and I’m not. So I don’t worry about whether God can do something, but rather whether evidence suggests that he has.

Indeed, for certain purposes – weeding out losers, for example – natural selection is doubtless an important mechanism.

I use it myself sometimes when I garden. I often just scatter flower seed broadcast – knowing that the losers will die, and the survivors will not need interventions that I can’t afford and don’t have time for.

Where I differ with the exponents of “Evolution” is:

1. I am not an atheist or a “liberal” Christian.

2. Therefore I do not need to prove that there is no design in the universe or life forms.

3. Therefore, I can acknowledge that design is evident in the universe and in life forms.

4. Therefore, I do not need to pretend that my method for weeding out loser plants in my garden actually creates any new information. All it does is distinguish between good and bad examples of the information that already existed.

5. I think that once we get things like that straight, we will be on the verge of another science revolution. But as along as we are stuck with no-design nonsense, we will be stuck with stupid projects about stuff we know that ain’t so.

I do hope this is a help.

Comments
I personally think that NOMA is an invalid concept. There is only one truth and there are different ways of arriving at it. Science is just one way but there is no reason science and other methods have to be non overlapping. If you want to define science as inference from data with a constant reassessment using new data, then I see no overlap but a continuum of methodology.jerry
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
“After all any large-scale acceptance of ID would inevitably lead to a redefinition of science as currently practiced in the form of methodological naturalism. ” Actually, what I think it would do would be to get meth-nat out of areas where it doesn't belong i.e. values; and this would lead to the elimination of moral relativism, and the recognition that truth is an absolute. Frankly, my prediction would be that it would result in the sincere establishment of NOMA, rather than the concept being given lip-service by secularists to marginalize concerned Christians.tribune7
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
I have to say I don’t personally buy it, because I think the religious and philosophical underpinnings are too obvious to be ignored and for ID Do you think they are too obvious to be ignored in the defenses offered by modern proponents of NDE? Or the original proponents for that matter? Go where the data leads you. Why the Judaic-Christian tradition over any other? Once you understand that there is a Creator, it is possible for you to incorrectly guess what this Creator wants you to do. Consider Aztec human sacrifices. Consider Islamic honor killings. Are you also now ruling out Deism Deism can be part of the Judaic-Christian tradition which would lead you not to practice human sacrifice/honor killings etc. or against the Judaic-Christian tradition which would not be a good thing. Regardless, if you are going to accept the values of the Judaic-Christian tradition you are going to have to accept divine revelation -- these values did not/cannot come from human reason -- so why not accept the miracles as well?tribune7
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
More unfounded certainty.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
The super fine tuning of the universe points to an immense intellect or intellects as its origin. Nothing else can be said about that intellect(s) from an ID perspective other than it is immense. Any other interpretations of that intellect must go somewhere else besides ID at the moment. ID does not say it is omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient only that it must have existed and is/was immense. Maybe science will be able to say more about the intellect as it learns more about the world and universe but right now it points to no specific religious based interpretation. For example, science might point to the necessity of an intellect to keep the universe in existence or running and if that is true then this would say a lot more about the type of intellect and its motives. But to deny such an intellect existed at one time to effect the creation of the universe is fatuous. The certainty of this statement is based on modern physics of the last 40 years but was always suspect by most during history as an explanation of the orderliness of the world and universe that was available for everyone to witness. At first science seemed to undermine that assessment as unnecessary but it shortly reversed itself and provided information to confirm it. Much to the consternation of many scientists. So atheism is living on past scientific assessments and not on present knowledge. As I said it is intellectually bankrupt and I stand by that appraisal of those who hold such a specious point of view. I do not know why they continue to hold such a point of view against the overwhelming evidence for the opposite. Maybe it is emotional. It certainly isn't logical.jerry
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
JTaylor:
Everybody is saying to that ID is limited to purely the detection of design only.
Detection AND study of the design.
I think for myself I would find that problematic to simply accept that narrow definition - as I said above I would have a hard time just accepting this without a natural inclination to also ponder on the nature of the designer as well.
Nothing in ID stops you from pondering other questions borne from the design inference.
If I were to accept ID I think it would have to go hand-in-hand with a concentrated search for a compatible Designer.
Why? The designer(s) identity is irrelevant to whether or not the object was designed. As a matter of fact the ONLY possible way to make a scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. That is how it works in every design-centric venue, including forensic science and archaeology.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
"After all any large-scale acceptance of ID would inevitably lead to a redefinition of science as currently practiced in the form of methodological naturalism. " Utter nonsense. Not one scientific study, or set of findings would necessarily be restricted. What would change would be the range of conclusions one could make from the findings and the types of studies may be expanded. Science would not lose one bit but who would lose are those scientists who currently arbitrarily restrict the conclusions one can make from the data. So such attitudes are an example of repressiveness under the guise of being enlightened. The next line is entirely correct "that would not be a trivial shift to put it mildly." Yes an expansion of possible knowledge would take place as restricted chains are released from what is now allowed as possible and true. The tyranny of modern science would be set aside for an open investigation into the nature of the world. Thank you JTaylor for showing us how restrictive modern science is and how it currently mixes metaphysical concepts with its findings to produce false non science based conclusions.jerry
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "So I do not know how Tao or Taoism solves this problem and how it is a traditional explanation for the universe." I don't know whether you know anything about Taoism or not, but my point was this: multiverses are a new, speculative idea, not a "traditional" alternative to theism. Other religious and philosophical alternatives to theism are "traditional" in the sense that they, like theism, have roots going back thousands of years. If you want to compare theism with other possible non-theisticviews of the how the universe came to be how it is, you need to know something about what those alternatives are. Also, Jerry writes, "Who said anything about a monotheistic deity?" Although theism can mean belief in a God or gods, it usually refers to belief in a (singular) divine entity. Atheism thus commonly means a lack of belief in God (again singular.) I see that one could believe in gods who designed the universe and have possibly been active in the world, but I don’t think that is what is commonly referred to as theism here at UD.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
tribune7 said: "But ID is solely a scientific endeavor, and it is new and is inspired by 20th Century advances in biological understanding and information theory." I think I understand the need and motives to keep ID methodology defined purely as a scientific endeavor. I have to say I don't personally buy it, because I think the religious and philosophical underpinnings are too obvious to be ignored and for ID to be so neatly sliced up and delineated like this. After all any large-scale acceptance of ID would inevitably lead to a redefinition of science as currently practiced in the form of methodological naturalism. That would not be a trivial shift to put it mildly. To me this "ID only science" stance comes across as disingenuous since some ID supporters like to claim that atheism is the engine behind evolution, and obviously have not issue with mixing science and metaphysical concepts (and I'm not suggesting you are saying this, but just in general). As to whether ID is science or not, I'm not going there other then to say I wish there was more of it to evaluate! tribune7 said: "You could then use ID to determine that this force is intelligent. Now, as far as what this force wants us to do, you are going to have depend on revealed religion, and I’d strongly recommend sticking with the Judaic-Christian tradition." Why the Judaic-Christian tradition over any other? Is that based on your personal experience? Are you also now ruling out Deism since (I presume) it will not be a force that wants us to do anything?JTaylor
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Jt- 'but I’d be very surprised if my journey takes me back to revealed religion'. Lol! Yes, quite right! We all are Jt... We all are... "I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy." G.K. Chesterton / Orthodoxy Chap 1, pg 5Lock
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
I don’t think I was necessarily asking for a scientific answer. But ID is solely a scientific endeavor, and it is new and is inspired by 20th Century advances in biological understanding and information theory. There is nothing metaphysical about it. It is falsifiable. Apply it to something known to be undesigned and get a false positive. Evolve a flagellum from a partial set of proteins. But if you falsify ID, however, you don't falsify design. You don't falsify God. ID is just a small subset of design theory/logic/philosophy. In fact I think I was trying to say that for me to seriously consider ID it would have to be both on scientific and metaphysical grounds. Here's something to consider: Kurt Godel noted that for mathematics, the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within the system. Suppose we apply that to the material universe. All matter can be described digitally, after all. :-) You would then have to resort to a force outside the material universe to explain the material universe. You could then use ID to determine that this force is intelligent. Now, as far as what this force wants us to do, you are going to have depend on revealed religion, and I'd strongly recommend sticking with the Judaic-Christian tradition. So there is something scientific and metaphysical for you to chew on :-) Of course, if you want to get right to the point with regards to Godel, you can just go with his ontological proof tribune7
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Who said anything about a monotheistic deity? I may have used creator in a singular fashion but did not mean to imply it was necessarily singular. Maybe it took more than one intelligence to create the universe, life and evolution. The question is why does anything exist and why does it exist with such super fine precision. If your way is traditional, then I have never seen this traditional way. Every argument I have ever seen during my life has been that there is no evidence of anything interfering in our universe. We seem to get along just fine without Zeus, Jehovah, Allah or any other deity or set of deities. Everything can be explained by the laws of nature. That was the cop out. It is only in the last 30-40 years that people began to examine the laws of the universe after they understood the standard model and its implications for the structure of the universe. So the argument for non interference in our affairs gave way to "what the hell" caused this fine tuning. In order not to interfere, an incredibly intricate machine was needed that just the slightest deviance would cause it to collapse. So I do not know how Tao or Taoism solves this problem and how it is a traditional explanation for the universe.jerry
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Hazel said "However, I’ll point out that the “traditional” way out is not a multiverse, which is an idea that is quite recent. " Of course there doesn't even have to be a "way out" - for myself I'm quite comfortable with acknowledging that science does not (yet) have answers to these things. That could and perhaps should open doors to explore of non-natural agencies, but in my own case I have yet to find any convincing evidence for that (at least for "revealed" religions). But it may be that it just hasn't come along yet (which is partly why I'm here of course). It's possible in time I could tentatively embrace some form of deism, who knows - but I'd be very surprised if my journey takes me back to revealed religion .JTaylor
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
tribune7 said "My view is that science can’t help one whit to answer that." I don't think I was necessarily asking for a scientific answer. In fact I think I was trying to say that for me to seriously consider ID it would have to be both on scientific and metaphysical grounds. As far as I know metaphysical discussion does occur here from time to time, so maybe if you don't wish to discuss it there are others here who might be willing to do so.JTaylor
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
I'll just accept that you feel that way, Jerry. That's your choice. However, I'll point out that the "traditional" way out is not a multiverse, which is an idea that is quite recent. A more traditional alternative would be, for instance, the Tao of Taoism, which is an older idea than that of a monotheistic deity.hazel
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
I have not seen a logical argument for the fine tuning of the universe outside of a creator. So I stick by my description. People can make up anything they want to deny the obvious. As I said I have zero respect for atheists and can understand a deist very easily. The traditional way out is a multiverse and even this leads to a potential creator.jerry
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Actually, it was back in November when I discussed this topic, mostly herehazel
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
as I said above I would have a hard time just accepting this without a natural inclination to also ponder on the nature of the designer as well. As well you should, but how will the ID method help you? if this design is real - who are the best candidates for the Designer? My view is that science can't help one whit to answer that.tribune7
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Uh, I'm an atheist "roaming the halls of UD," and I'm pretty sure I'm not "intellectually bankrupt." Your conclusion that the existence of our universe as it is points to a deity is just one possible hypothesis. I had a long discussion about this back in December. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, and I understand many of the things which lead people to choose to believe in a deity rather than some of the other options, but to call me "intellectually bankrupt" is to have way too much confidence that your are right about things we can't really know (as well as being fairly rude.)hazel
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
JTaylor, I have often said here that I find atheism intellectually bankrupt and at any moment there are several atheist roaming the halls of UD. So I consider these individuals intellectually bankrupt and would have more respect for them if they said they were Deists. But atheism is fashionable now and deism is not. I base this assessment on the fine tuning of the universe. All ID can point to in terms of a deity is a creator of the universe who set up the laws under which it runs. After that the creator could have retired so to speak and this belief was popular at the end of the 18th century. Now ID also questions the origin of life due to naturalistic causes but this could still be due to a Deist creator who created life somewhere in the universe and this life in turn created the life we have here. ID cannot say anything more. The Deist creator could have created the life on our planet but there is no judgment that he did or didn't do it as there was for the universe. Also it appears that aspects of the evolution of life does not appear to be due to naturalistic causes so one could argue that some intelligence has helped it along at various times. Again nowhere does this point to the creator of the universe or to any specific deity or to any specific intelligence. If anyone wants to run with this to justify a certain religion, then it is just wishful thinking. One has to go some place else to do that. It does not contradict most religions but it does not necessarily support any particular one.jerry
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Jtaylor, you ask some good questions. And you make some intersting comments that ring in alot of assumptions. For example, in your very last paragraph you mentioned the 'how' and 'when' of design. And that is very intersting to me, because the same can be said of the cosmos. But in doing so, we bring in mechanical assumptions concerning causation that cannot be supported other than by our philosophy. So if your with me so far, you are quite correct, our bias is certainly brought in. And that means all of us. Why do we all assume that 'how' and 'when' are legitimate frmaes of reference by which to ask the questions? It is a real problem... When dealing with origins, I personally think we must consider asking these questions from the refernce of 'who' rather than 'how'. And the reason is simple. Many events we witness or experience are 'caused' by other 'whos'. C.S. Lewis pointed out in his book 'Miracles' that we would find no help using the laws of physics to explain 'how' a billiard ball goes to point A instead of B. Becuase the laws only tell us where it will go once willed into action by being. So when it comes to exp-laining the origins of life and the cosmos, perhaps they are not 'how' questions at all. The cause producing the effect may be the will of being. The material clues can only take us so far. When it comes to origins we are on metaphysical ground. And that is very ineresting...Lock
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Interesting responses. In my questions above one of the things I was trying to understand is whether an acceptance of ID naturally leads not only to Christianity but to a particular form of Christianity. From the answers it seems people are saying ID can be made to be compatible with a wide range of viewpoints - inerrant, mythical, OEC, YEC etc (and presumably some limited acceptance of evolution itself). Everybody is saying to that ID is limited to purely the detection of design only. Not the first time I've heard that of course as it is frequently stated on these pages. I think for myself I would find that problematic to simply accept that narrow definition - as I said above I would have a hard time just accepting this without a natural inclination to also ponder on the nature of the designer as well. If I were to accept ID I think it would have to go hand-in-hand with a concentrated search for a compatible Designer. That's why I can't help wonder then, if this design is real - who are the best candidates for the Designer? Obviously many people here think the Christian God. That's why I've been trying to probe to find out why. Why Jehovah and not Allah, or Scientology or Hinduism or whatever? Who is the best-qualified "design" God? Or is ID flexible enough that people simply fit ID into their established belief systems? The responses above suggest this is true, but surely there should be some tell-tale signs that may lead us favor one entity over another? Also it does seem that the majority of leading ID proponents probably held their religious beliefs prior to knowing and accepting ID - so there could be some confirmation bias playing a part here. If anything a better fit might be a Deist God - after all, since we know so little about how the mechanisms of ID (how, when etc), perhaps Deism is a closer fit than anything (isn't that close to the conclusion that Anthony Flew made?).JTaylor
April 5, 2009
April
04
Apr
5
05
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
If ID can’t at some point start to answer these questions, I have to wonder what the point is? The point is to determine whether an object is designed or not. Isn’t ID too narrowly circumscribed to ever be of any useful application? It is very useful to know whether or not an object is designed. I think too human curiosity cannot stop people naturally wanting to ask these questions - Sure, but using the methodology of ID won't help very much in answering them. Barometric pressure will tell you if a storm is coming but it won't tell you why. Radiometric dating can provide an age for an object but it won't tell you what it was used for or how it got where it was. Something can be very useful without being encompassing. Actually, the specific a tool is the more reliable, and useful, it is for its given purpose..tribune7
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Somewhat interesting thread but I prefer talking about the evidence of design rather than speculating and conjecturing about the Bible, whether it is inerrant, figurative, literal, etc. I see some really bold statements in this thread. For some, science has removed the need for God. Wow, what a ridiculous reach. Quite the contrary, the more I know about life and the universe, the less likely it seems to me that any of this could have happened by accident. For example, what banged during the Big Bang? And don't weave fantasies about the multiverse. Those that are certain of the multiverse are 1) grasping at anything that will reduce the need for a transcendent being and 2) begging the question in that it would remain to be explained where the multiverse itself came from. Furthermore, as expressed earlier in this thread: where did the first organism of self-replication, mutation, etc. come from? You can't get a chicken without an egg and you can't get an egg without a chicken. Evolution says *nothing* of this issue and yet the atheists are just so darn sure! None of this necessarily proves the existence of God (particularly the God of any specific religion). It is merely strong evidence that some transcendent being is necessary to account for first causes. I am not certain regarding the identity of this implied, transcendent being. I see certainty as the antithesis of faith and have no problem separating my faith from this issue. Strictly speaking, ID *only* detects design. It says *nothing* regarding the identity or nature of the designer (or designers). Be it God, little green men, time travelers, or some biochemical activity occurring on the backs of crystals (as proposed by a prominent Darwinist in the movie Expelled!), it matters not to the science of ID.mtreat
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
JTaylor: "But we’re not allowed to question who/what that intelligence is - although the majority of people on this forum believe that intelligence is the Biblical God. But why?" Funny nobody's ever told me on this forum or anywhere else that I'm not allowed to question who or what the intelligence is - that goes on all the time even in this forum. All ID is saying is that the question of who the designer is, is a question better left to philosophy or theology, not to science. In other words, ID merely detects design - what you do with that evidence is up to you. Design proponents are not going to dictate that to you. There's a huge difference between ID proponents and Darwinists in this area - Darwinists use their "evidence" to dicatate atheism. JTaylor: "A lot of ID supports here say: Proposition A: I believe in God Proposition B: I see evidence for ID And the unstated conclusion (and the elephant in the room) is A causes B. But why does A cause B and not C or D or X?" Well I don't know what you mean by C, D or X, but perhaps ID supporters accept that A causes B because there is evidence for B, but not for C, D or X.CannuckianYankee
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
"Explain it me - and give me a Biblical basis too that is more than just random cherry picking of verses. But if it is such a good fit, why is it that for the majority of the 2000 years of church history, theologians have mostly supported Biblical creationism." Of course theologians have supported Biblical creationism, that is beside the point. They have at the same time supported philosophical arguments that don't come from the Bible, but support creationism; such as the teleological arguments for the existence of God - the Kalam Cosmological argument, etc. Theologioans, like other thinking humans have not lived in a vacuum of biblical literalism apart from understanding other arguments that support their views. Again, I think you are making assumptions about Christian thought that need not be made-. ID is an argument for design. It implies a designer. Therefore, combined with the metaphysical arguments for God's existence, ID becomes another one of those teleological arguments for God's existence. Incidentally, the design argument goes back several centuries; it is not a 20th century invention. ID merely expands the design argument with evidence from biology.CannuckianYankee
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
JTaylor: "But the current science behind the Cambrian explosion holds that mammals did not basically exist prior to this event. Of course remember I’m not a believer so I personally think the YECer has got just about everything dead wrong.: Well I'm not a YECer. I am however a believer in inerrancy. I don't think the YECers have everything dead wrong. The science has to be separated from the metaphysical assumptions as I stated earlier. As far as we know the earth could be only a few thousand years old as a literal interpretation of Genesis might appear to suggest. But the physical evidence we have appears to suggest otherwise. This does not make Genesis incorrect - only the literal interpretation of Gensis, in which the YECers engage. The 6,000 year old dating of the Genesis creation event does not take into account gaps in the genealogies that most certainly exist. And apart from that, Genesis does not seem to give us a time frame between the creation of the earth and the creation of animals and humans. Look, all that Genesis states is that God created. It does not state how He created, or by what time frame. I used to believe (even as a Christian) that the events described in Genesis are allegorical. I no longer believe that because it appears that the earliest Christians, including Jesus himself did not believe that. However, I CAN mesh my evangelical inerrant views of scripture with the scientific evidence, precisely because Genesis does not address the "hows" and the "time frames" involved in creation. I'm as open to a front-loading explanation as to an interventionist explanation, because Genesis does not address these. But what matters is not my metaphysical beliefs; rather, as Antony Flew suggests, to go where the evidence leads. So far the evidence does not destroy my faith.CannuckianYankee
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee said: "It IS a good fit. You apparently don’t know Christian theology as much as you pretend to." Explain it me - and give me a Biblical basis too that is more than just random cherry picking of verses. But if it is such a good fit, why is it that for the majority of the 2000 years of church history, theologians have mostly supported Biblical creationism.JTaylor
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee said: "ID is useful because it shows that something other than unguided unplanned natural selection is going on. It shows that complex specified information is behind the irreducible complexity found in biological organisms, and as such, it implies that such information came from intelligence." But we're not allowed to question who/what that intelligence is - although the majority of people on this forum believe that intelligence is the Biblical God. But why? A lot of ID supports here say: Proposition A: I believe in God Proposition B: I see evidence for ID And the unstated conclusion (and the elephant in the room) is A causes B. But why does A cause B and not C or D or X?JTaylor
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
JTaylor: "I know some have tried to mesh theology and ID together but to an outsiders viewpoint at least it seems more of a mish-mash than a good fit, let alone one that establishes any kind of causal relationship." You know, you are really good at making gross generalizations without any support whatsoever. ID "meshes" perfectly well with evangelical Christian theology. This is precisely the reason so many evangelicals support ID and why the majority of ID supporters (at least in this country) are evangelical Christians. It IS a good fit. You apparently don't know Christian theology as much as you pretend to. One of the most well known ID proponents is William Dembski. He is not only an evangelical Christian, but he has an advanced degree in theology. If ID didn't mesh with Dr. Dembski's theological views or vica versa, he would either not be an evangelical, or not be an ID supporter.CannuckianYankee
April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply