I’ll leave Numbers and Van Till out of this, and comment simply on the last part of this sentence. Where is the evidence that BL rejects natural theology? We don’t necessarily embrace every single kind of argument from design, but (again) my columns on TE make it abundantly clear that we are open to some very strong kinds of arguments from design. See this, for example: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-theistic-evolution-part-2 (and note that I mention Ken Miller as a proponent of one type of natural theology, once again refuting your claim that he’s a philosophical atheist). Also, you might read my series on John Polkinghorne, who certainly advances certain types of natural theology: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/searching-for-motivated-belief-understanding-john-polkinghorne-part-1. The fact that we ran this series at BL should tell you something, Matt. Do I have to spell it out?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.