Rejecting God Sustains the ID Rhetoric

The question raised below triggered the idea for this thread:

Continuing the discussion from Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life:


It would be better for everyone if even the atheist and agnostic supporters of Evolution wrote “as though there was a God of design that didnt want to he discovered”!

Then you would be able to avoid the snares set for you by those who oppose Evolution being discussed … even by God Himself.

That doesn’t work for me.


I dont think it is hard to understand that constantly chasing discussions where Atheists and Agnostics “frame” the discussion as “no design” vs. “God’s Design”… that ID folks find their discussions far easier to promote amongst the masses… because there is no mass/consumer market interested in removing God.

Every time Christian-endorsed “God-Creates-by-Evolution” takes two steps forward, some agnostic dispute erupts that inevitably drives the discussion back a step by describing evolution as a means of creation without God!!!

Im not sure how you mean this, @swamidass. Respond to my very last post when you can.

In a dialectic … every rejection of God by an evolutionist provides energy to the ID factions… when it is completely unnecessary…

Id say science is silent divine design because of its limits, not because God is trying to hide.



And i would agree with you.

But letting agnostics and atheists constantly de-rail the theological stance of the “God Ecosystem” here at Peaceful Science seems a very slow way to proceed.

If an Agnostic supporter of Evolution cant write for Christians, using a Christian perspective, it would be better if they could write as though God wants to be a secret - - than to actively oppose the goals of Peaceful Science by ooposing God’s presence in nature.

Just find more refined language, or use mine, and you are fine.

1 Like


You dont think i am the one falling into this trap, do you?

I am constantly reminding participants that they are arguing about the existence of God on a site that takes His existence as a given.

Im talking about all these Atheists and Agnostics who fill every thread with the dispute over God’s presence in nature… by debating whether we really need God to explain nature!

If the ID people are right… the Agnostics will all be proved wrong .

But if the ID camp is wrong (which you and i agree they are)… we are going to plagued with an energized ID wing that can never leave or convert their views…

as long as the pro-Evolution agnostics continue to tie Evolution to the idea that God is unnecessary!

This raises alarm bells:

Most people will disagree with this.


Yes… the agnostocs and atheists will.

But i would doubt a majority of the Christian supporters of Evolution would.

I would even think a sizable group pf ID folks (a majority?) would relish a chance to dispute with other Christians …

… without someone hijacking a thread to dispute whether God is really necessary…

Actually, I disagree with this as well.

I don’t think I am doing that.

There’s a distinction, however, between:

  • God is necessary as part of a scientific explanation;


  • God is seen as necessary for philosophical reasons.

I agree @nwrickert. You aren’t.

I think @gbrooks9’s valid point is that we are more convincing when we can map out a desirable path of retreat for people. Even though atheists do not see need for God, noting how it could be affirmed in light of mainstream science helps people come to terms with science, and bow out gracefully. He sees (correctly) many missed opportunities of reassuring people of this, and pointing them to their way out.

Sure, there are people bruising for a fight. There are perhaps many more that feel like a cornered animal. Better to give them a path of retreat, rather than force fight to the death. @gbrooks9 is right to encourage more sensitivity to this concern.


Perhaps it would helpful to me if i knew which part you disagreed with?

That part.


I believe you explain the problem better than I did!


Well yes… you disagree with the stated proposal… but why?

Why do you want a constantly “hepped up” ID faction that is too busy defending theism to be able to agree with God-guided Evolution?

Wait, let me get this straight first.

You’re proposing that we (including atheist and agnostic) should talk to ID proponents as if we believe that evolution is God-guided, or at least started by God?

If that is so, Joshua has talked to them as a Christian who affirms evolution this whole time!

As for atheists, not once did one of them. here at least, even imply that evolution somehow disproves God. As for them talking about evolution like they believe it’s God-guided: why? Why should they throw their non-belief away while talking with ID members, just so they could baby them? They should be courteous while speaking with them, but they don’t have to baby them. That would be insulting!

Or, at least, if I was an ID proponent, I would be insulted.


No. That would not be honest for atheists. They do not believe this.

I think the point is for everyone to point out how the two could fit together, even if they personally don’t feel that is necessary.


With that, I can agree with. Wholeheartedly.

Although, I’m not an atheist so…