A Philsophical Point Of View
William A. Wetzel (n6rky@pacbell.net)
Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:35:29 -0800
Massie wrote:
>
> Allan Harvey wrote:
>
> > In response to suggestions by Howard van Till and myself that the
> > "Intelligent Design" movement better define its terms, Massie wrote:
> >
> > >Neither Christians nor materialists have enough information to rule out
> > >that God simply set the initial conditions just right and perhaps some
> > >laws of nature that we do not understand so that life progessed in the
> > >way it did.
> > >
> > >Thesis 1: God intervened at certain steps to change things.
> > >
> > >Thesis 2: God set it up with hidden genes so that eventually a dinosaur
> > >would lay and egg and out would come a chicken.
> > >
> > >How could we tell the difference?
> > >
> > >We we do know is that overall it is more difficult to believe that all
> > >of this happened without some external source of information and fine
> > >tuning .
> > >
> > >Theism and design do not depend on how God implemented.
> > >
> > >However, for me, it is easier to believe in progressive intevention but
> > >I would never push Thesis 1 or Thesis 2 as a certain thing because I
> > >don't have any firm basis.
> >
> > And this gets directly to my point. In contrast to Massie's
> > openmindedness with regard to how God may have chosen to carry out his
> > creation, *much* of the "Intelligent Design" movement seems to reject
> > "natural" ways of God's implementing his design, insisting (or at least
> > giving the impression) that only Thesis 1 above is compatible with
> > theism. This is pretty horrid from the standpoint of Christian theology
> > (not to mention apologetically unwise), and if the Intelligent Design
> > movement is to have a healthy impact on the body of Christ it must be
> > steered away from such errors. Avoiding that error (and perhaps more
> > importantly avoiding lay people being led into that error based on how
> > they interpret the message) will require clearly thought out distinctions
> > and definitions that the ID movement does not seem to be making currently.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------> > | Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
> > | Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
> > | National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
> > | 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> I believe that the progressive creation view best fits the data including
> Genesis but, again, it is difficult to discern with anywhere near the level of
> certainty that many express.
>
> Bert
Has it ever occurred to anyone that:
1) Design could be (pictured) as a glass half full of water
2) Evolution could be (pictured) as a glass half empty of water
3) Theistic Evolution would be the entire picture????
Although it is beyond the realm of science to answer the God question; it
is certainly possible to answer it with philosophy and theology. It maybe
possible to extend science up the pyramid of human knowledge someday, but
to do so now would certainly be premature.
--
William A. Wetzel
icq-uin# 13983514
http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
mailto:n6rky@qsl.net