Wednesday, May 09, 2012
As has long been noted, the real dislike of creationists is reserved not for atheists but for "theistic evolutionists." Dembski is so incensed at Darrel Falk of Biologos that he is willing to give away the whole ID scam:
Theologically speaking, ID imposes few limits and is compatible with God acting at all levels of creation and through all modes of causation. When design is detected, God is active. And when design is not detected, God is still active. This doesn't make ID contentless. Rather, it means that ID is largely neutral with respect to one's doctrine of God, a fact that should not be surprising given that ID is compatible not only with Judeo-Christian theism but also with just about any religious view that regards purpose as basic to reality.
I don't accept common descent. I think the scientific evidence is against it ... [E]ven though common descent may be acceptable in broad theological terms, I think it is problematic exegetically with regard to Scripture. Simply put, I think you're going to have a hard time getting large-scale evolution out of Scripture or rendering the two compatible.
Noah's flood, though presented as a global event, is probably best understood as historically rooted in a local event.
If you can't save your theology within science, then why are you pretending to do science? The Disco'tutes have made it clear, once again, that they can't and won't.
Via The Sensuous Curmudgeon.
It sounds to me like the "scientific evidence" Dembski thinks is against common descent is...exegesis.