Dover Case Questions

[Perry Dane]

Brad writes:

Perry wrote on 12/21/2005
01:54:14 PM:

>          It is
therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of 
> ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a 
> child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of
a 
> kindergarten art project.

Or that an omniscient God who knows more than we do had a reason for 
creating us this way that is no more apparent to us than it is apparent
to 
a 3 year old why he can't play with a lit candle.

        Yes.

        And that is part of what makes Intelligent Design Theory so theologically and religiously unsatisfactory:  For the sake of trying to play in the arena of science, an effort at which it fails, much of the ID movement invokes a designer who is simply an abstract placeholder rather than the One Who Loves, and who evokes love and worship from his or her creation.

        There is a deeper point lurking here about the very strange terms on which the contemporary culture wars are being fought.  But I'll let that pass.

                                   Perry

*******************************************************
Perry Dane                                
Professor of Law

Rutgers University
School of Law  -- Camden                 
217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102                          

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/

Work:   (856) 225-6004
Fax:       (856) 969-7924
Home:   (610) 896-5702
*******************************************************

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.