Maya
Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
| Quote (midwifetoad @ April 16 2010,13:08) | | Quote | | http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/olive-branch-from-karl-giberson/ |
Can any sense be made of the olive branch thread?
It seems at once to violate all the years at UD of denying the Designer is God, and at the same time making anything other than a Deistic god unnecessary. |
I couldn't make it past the first quote from Karl Giberson:
| Quote | Not all ID theorists insist on this however. I had a chance to chat with Michael Behe when we were on a panel a few months ago at Brigham Young University; I pressed him to find out just how far apart we were. I knew he accepted common ancestry and rejected young earth creationism, just as we do at BioLogos. Behe insisted that "design is empirically detectable" but he did not insist that such design requires intervention by God.
Fair enough.
Perhaps it would be most appropriate to say that ID "tends to slip into god-of-the-gaps," rather than equating it with god-of-the gaps, as its critics tend to do.
|
Talk about damning with faint praise.
|
