Why Huston Smith Matters
Read more1. Recently there have been some expressions of disappointment at Huston Smith’s assertions in his latest book to the effect that those who talk of intelligent design, traditional god, relevance of religion, etc. are kept out by reputable scholars and organizations committed to building bridges between Science and Religion. We have been reminded by a number of people that Huston
0Responses to Dembski
Read moreMetaviews 005. 2001.01.30. Approximately 3103 words. There were a number of responses to Metaviews 004 by William Dembski.In the first message, Todd Moody, a philosopher at St. Joesph’sUniversity in Philadelphia challenges my characterization ofintelligent design and Darwinism as both irrefutable metaphysicalsystems. In the second message, John Gaffin from Myer Flat, CAchallenges Dembski to stop nourishing fundamentalist dreams aboutcreationism. In the
Is Intelligent Design Testable– A Response to Eugenie Scott
Read moreEugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist who as director of theNationalCenterfor Science Education travels theUnited Stateswarning audiences about the threat of creationism and unmasking its various guises. Intelligent design, according to her, is currently the most sinister of these guises. Scott has developed a standard shtick, which includes not only some well-worn arguments against creationism and some newer arguments against
Review of John Haught’s “God After Darwin”
Read moreI raise concerns about his vision of a loving God and a metaphysics of the future because I believe these concerns point out weaknesses in his otherwise sound and beneficial proposal.
Robust Formational Possibilities
Read moreSince my name and views were often engaged in Bill Dembski’s Metaviews #098 essay, here are a few comments and clarifications as part of the continuing conversation. For convenience I will use Bill’s numbering system for my comments on selected segments of his essay. 1. Cards on the Table Bill, I’m glad to see this heading for a portion of
