Search
-
Recent Posts
- A rose by any other name is still a rose⦠14/06/2026
- Some brief new thoughts on Genesis 6 09/06/2026
- Ideology as brain surgery 06/06/2026
- What turns Evangelicals Catholic? 03/06/2026
- British values were Evangelical Christian values 30/05/2026
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on Some brief new thoughts on Genesis 6
- Jon Garvey on Some brief new thoughts on Genesis 6
- Peter Hickman on Some brief new thoughts on Genesis 6
- Jon Garvey on Speech suppression more contagious than COVID – and certainly deadlier
- Ben on Speech suppression more contagious than COVID – and certainly deadlier
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