Brad writes:
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM:
> It is therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of
> ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
> child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a
> kindergarten art project.
Or that an omniscient God who knows more than we do had a reason for
creating us this way that is no more apparent to us than it is apparent to
a 3 year old why he can't play with a lit candle.
Yes.
And that is part of what makes Intelligent Design Theory so
theologically and religiously unsatisfactory: For the sake of trying
to play in the arena of science, an effort at which it fails, much of
the ID movement invokes a designer who is simply an abstract
placeholder rather than the One Who Loves, and who evokes love and
worship from his or her creation.
There is a deeper point lurking here about the very strange
terms on which the contemporary culture wars are being fought. But
I'll let that pass.
Perry
*******************************************************
Perry Dane
Professor of Law
Rutgers University
School of Law -- Camden
217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/
Work: (856) 225-6004
Fax: (856) 969-7924
Home: (610) 896-5702
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.