Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review

I would say if you found THREE that embrace ID with no interest in its theological implications… that would qualify as “a fair number”.

I think the vast majority of ID proponents have an “interest in the theological implications” of design arguments. But the point is that theological premises are not smuggled into the arguments for design. I have asked over and over again for opponents of ID to show me where, in Signature in the Cell, No Free Lunch, Darwin’s Black Box, etc., an ID proponent assumes the truth of some religious belief and bases his argument (mathematical, genetic, whatever) for design on that. So far not a single atheist or EC/TE proponent has produced a single passage.

In contrast, the arguments against ID by Ken Miller, beaglelady, etc., along the lines of “If nature is designed, then God must be a horrible, cruel monster, and I won’t accept such a God,” are arguments built on religious premises. The arguments of Darrel Falk, Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne and others that God would not want to tyrannize over nature (by determining evolutionary outcomes) but would give it some “freedom” (and hence leave evolution somewhat open-ended) are also arguments built on religious premises.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Theological Premises in Design Arguments?

A post was merged into an existing topic: Theological Premises in Design Arguments?

ID is not science. If it is not theology, what is it? LOL that “beaglelady” is quoted as some kind of authoritative figure in theology or science.

ID is dismissed as nonsense. You are not entitled to an explanation why.



How is that not contradictory?

That sounds like a familiar complaint. Might the opposing side not often note the same?