tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post112346810674602018..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: ID on TV: Reflections on Being TelevisedDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1123630253377615372005-08-09T17:30:00.000-06:002005-08-09T17:30:00.000-06:00I should say "surely" instead of "perhaps" in my l...I should say "surely" instead of "perhaps" in my last sentence.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1123629004902881322005-08-09T17:10:00.000-06:002005-08-09T17:10:00.000-06:00Dr. Groothuis, Thanks much.I am trying to think th...Dr. Groothuis, Thanks much.<BR/><BR/>I am trying to think this through. So one might say that science defined as strictly with reference to observation and analysis of data from the "natural" (or observable) world is an arbitrary definition, if not allowed to consider all possible contingencies (such as a creator god or "intelligent designer"). Something like that? In other words all possible spheres of reality should be open for scientists to consider- and even to make propostions concerning in their work?<BR/><BR/>"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3). Perhaps this faith which expresses our understanding as believers that God did create everything does not nullify the reflection of God in his general revelation to all humans as expressed in Romans 1, Psalm 19.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1123592151404110912005-08-09T06:55:00.000-06:002005-08-09T06:55:00.000-06:00To Ted: One can be religiously motivated and still...To Ted: One can be religiously motivated and still pursue a scientific purpose. This was true of nearly all the men to who advanced the Scientific Revolution. They were impelled to understand God's world and make it understandable for the glory of God. See Rodney Stark's discussion in his book, "For the Glory of God." To think otherwise is to beg the question about the rationality of both religion and science. The issue is not what motivates a person, but what they actually put out in the world of ideas. I owe this distinction between motivation and purpose to William Demski, as articulated in his superb book, "The Design Revolution."Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1123469448190917402005-08-07T20:50:00.000-06:002005-08-07T20:50:00.000-06:00Sounds really good. Wish I could have seen it. I d...Sounds really good. Wish I could have seen it. <BR/><BR/>I do wonder about the claim that when one gets into the intelligent design part, one is departing from science and entering into metaphysics or faith and religion.<BR/><BR/>This question is from hearing the exchange on NPR's "the Diane Rhem show". Nothing against Richard Land; he did alright, but I would have preferred to hear someone like you, a philosophical scholar, or a scientist to debate the other scientist that day. They did try to get a scientist to debate the evolutionist scientist to no avail.<BR/><BR/>Nice communication to us of your experience that day, and of the limitations involved. Thanks.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.com