Search
-
Recent Posts
- Brotherly babies and baptismal bathwater 07/02/2025
- Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to avoid Misinformation 01/02/2025
- All that glisters is not gold 27/01/2025
- Wot a pretty world we live in 25/01/2025
- End times postponed – or not? 20/01/2025
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on Permission to hate, Sir
- shopwindows on Permission to hate, Sir
- Jon Garvey on Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to avoid Misinformation
- shopwindows on Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to avoid Misinformation
- Jon Garvey on Confusion over temples produces confusion over worship
Post Archive
Daily Archives: 18/04/2017
How did he do that?
The commonest rejoinder to any design argument in nature, you will no doubt have noticed, is “Who’s the designer, then?” Although the ID reply is actually perfectly rational – that inference to design cannot, intrinsically, tell one the nature of the designer in detail – the question is in reality just an over-elaborate, if hackneyed, attempt to show that there is a hidden agenda of religion which, once uncovered, would render design unscientific in principle and, probably, a threat to the body politic. It’s Catch 22 – stick with methodological naturalism and design is deceitful creationism: mention God in reply to the question and it’s an illegitimate insertion into science.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
Leave a comment