Conservatives, Darwin & Design: An Exchange

First Things ^ | Larry Arnhart, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski

[cornelis]

The limit of knowledge does not require the existence of anything beyond that knowledge

You have an infinitely high estimation of knowledge. Happily you won't transfer that estimation to mean actual existence.

[PatrickHenry]

That knowledge has a limit does not require the existence of anything beyond that knowledge.

I would put it differently:
(a) Limits on our knowledge are inevitable.
(b) Such limits are not evidence for the existence of gods.

Or to put it another way:
Our ignorance is not proof of God (unless, of course, God = ignorance).

To a scientist, ignorance is an opportunity to search for knowledge.

[ConservativeLibrarian]

Great article! Thanks for posting this.

Bumping to bookmark

[rwfromkansas]

That is a very convienient excuse. If there is any doubt, one can not teach it as fact. You can teach it and explore it as a theory, but not fact. Evolutionists liked you are not willing to do anything but treat it as the gospel.

[PatrickHenry]

If there is any doubt, one can not teach it as fact. You can teach it and explore it as a theory, but not fact. Evolutionists liked you are not willing to do anything but treat it as the gospel.

That evolution happens is fact (that is, species change over time). The idea first proposed by Darwin, that the fact of evolution is caused by mutation and natural selection is a theory. It's the only scientific theory we have to explain evolution. The only thing treated as gospel, to my knowledge, is the bible itself.

[rwfromkansas]

"That evolution happens is fact (that is, species change over time)."

This is certainly accurate. Thanks for making a distinction though.