>Re: ID and Scientific Utility
Eduardo G. Moros (moros@castor.wustl.edu)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:36:19 -0500According to the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, all creation is evidence of
I.D. So I don't understand why anybody can point to certain unexplained
or unexplainable mechanism in nature and say, "see? there is proof of
the great designer". This is to me a form of mysticism. Now, when it
comes to I.C. (irreducible complexity) the theistic scientist may have a
chance; however, he/she runs the risk of being told, "just wait and
see", as indeed they have been telling us for 150 years now. I believe
emphatically in that all "nature" can be explained with "naturalistic"
science, no because God does not exist or play a role, but because He so
created it. If I believe that "by faith shall the righteous live" but
find a supernatural superevidence that points unmistakably to the guilty
one (God), then I can't live by faith no more, at least as far as in
believing in a designer goes. So, I rather join Paul is asserting that
"all" nature is evidence of I.D., both explained an unexplained nature.
I will, nevertheless, assist the Creation/Evolution workshop next Oct.
17-19 here in St. Louis sponsored by ITEST, Michael Behe is one of the
speakers and I'm very interested in what he has to say. Concluding, I
think that I.D. is a frivolous attempt since I believe that all nature
is evidence of ID (as I believer you can not point me to something in
nature and say, "see? God could not have done this", the very scientific
enterprise I attribute possible because of God), and I think that for IC
to make a dent in today's atheistic minds we'll have to wait a very long
time (we'll not be around). Therefore, I will contine to enjoy all
these endless theories and continue to live by faith. As an scientist I
will, however, continue to use the tool God has given us to study nature
- a naturalistic tool indeed of ultimate supernatural origin - the
scientific method.
Salu2