ISCID Forums


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» ISCID Forums   » General   » Brainstorms   » Reply to Henry Morris

   
Author Topic: Reply to Henry Morris
William A. Dembski
Member
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted 01. February 2005 14:16      Profile for William A. Dembski   Email William A. Dembski   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Henry Morris, in a recent review of my book The Design Revolution, offers some criticisms of the intelligent design movement. In the essay below I respond to his concerns. The main point at issue for me is clarifying the contributions of creationists to the current debate over intelligent design as well as how these two programs diverge.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

[ 03. February 2005, 22:05: Message edited by: William A. Dembski ]

IP: Logged
JohnAaron
Member
Member # 1554

Icon 1 posted 03. February 2005 09:04      Profile for JohnAaron   Email JohnAaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just a little comment on your first response. This isnt a response or an attempt at defending any position, rather it is in the hope that you accurately represent the position of Morris/YECs.
In your first response it seems implicit that you believe young-earth creationists to interpret the Bible literally, for example when you refer to psalm 93 as requiring geocentrism by a literal interpretation, and when you state that "if literalism is the key to biblical hermeneutics". This is fine if you are talking strictly about Henry Morris because he does appear to take a literal appraoch to scripture.
However "literalism" hasnt been the hermenutical approach if the historic church, neither is it the approach taken by the majority of young-earth creationists (e.g. "Answers In Genesis"). Rather, they would say they interpret the Bible "straight-forwardly" or that their hermenutic is concerned with interpreting a given passage in light of its language, grammer, style, structure and social/literally context. This means that they interpret SOME passages of scripture literally (as would essentially all Christians) but not others. This is an important distinction and explains why, for example, psalm 93 is not read literally by these groups: it is not a literal genre! They therefore interpret Genesis literally not becuase that is the inevitable consequence of a literalist hermenutic, rather it is the result of a literary/historical criticism. As a convinced youg-earther myself i think it is an important point to make because it is often frustrating to be misrepresented as a literalist when in fact you are not. For example I read Genesis 1 literally because I'm convinced that it was written basically as historical narrative, but hold to a preterist eschatology beacuse I am convinced that the historical-grammatical method shows that most of the end-time prophecies were expected to (and did) occur within the lifetime of the Apostles.

IP: Logged


All times are East Coast  
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    Top Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | ISCID

All content © ISCID and content contributor 2001-2003

The ISCID Forums are aimed at generating insight into the nature of complex systems (e.g. biological complexity, organizational complexity, etc.) and the ontological status of purpose, especially from the vantage point of various information- and design-theoretic models.

Indexed by UBB Spider Hack  |  Powered by Infopop Corporation UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.1

PCID | Encyclopedia | Brainstorms | The Archive | News | Essay Contests | Chat Events | Membership