Search
-
Recent Posts
- The blood is the life thereof 07/04/2025
- Tyndale House and me 05/04/2025
- To save Judaeo-Christian values, or to be saved? 29/03/2025
- To Law or not to Law? 20/03/2025
- The tradition of magical thinking in Darwinism 15/03/2025
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on To save Judaeo-Christian values, or to be saved?
- Peter Hickman on To save Judaeo-Christian values, or to be saved?
- Jon Garvey on To Law or not to Law?
- shopwindows on To Law or not to Law?
- shopwindows on To Law or not to Law?
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