1449Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: ID logically implies non-ID, but u have none!
- Nov 8, 2006--- "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
> Indeed, we have no problem finding examples of aBy this you distance yourself from a large assortment
> lack of intelligent
> design ("non-intelligent design" could be
> misunderstood to mean
> design that is not intelligent). When a rock slide
> occurs as the
> result of natural processes, the consequent
> positions of the rocks
> are not the result of design. Innumerable additional
> examples could
> be given.
of internet "apologists" who insist that
non-intelligent design is an oxymoron, having assumed
that "design" must always be inevitably linked to
> If any advocate of ID has actually claimed that "GodOk, now you are even further from the rest I've spoken
> designed everything in the universe," that person
> either misstated
> or was speaking in a different context than what you
> are construing
> such a statement to mean. The usual ID position is
> that God
> intelligently designed the universe as a whole and
> that his design
> is evidentially supported by some specific phenomena
> in the universe
> (e.g., DNA), not that God intelligently designed
> every specific
> physical object that has ever existed and every
> event of every type
> that has ever occurred.
to, who had no problems saying God intelligently
designed absolutely everything in the universe.
By the way, since Hebrews 1:3 says God upholds all
things by the word of his power, and Jesus said not a
bird will fall from heaven without the heavenly
Father, doesn't this indicate complete oversight of
the creation? How can God NOT have intelligently
designed every last little bit of matter in the
universe, in the biblical world view?
Doesn't the Calvinist view accentuate this even more,
even saying that every drop of rain is predestined to
hit exactly where it does, or that rocks will break
apart the way God wishes them to?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- << Previous post in topic