Most ID folks seem to have a religious agenda of one sort or another & even the
putative scientist who doesn't would have to be fantastically naive not to realize that
that conclusions about "intelligent design" would be drawn into religious discussion.
Given that, it behoves those making such arguments to be explicit about their
theological or atheological presuppositions & be very sure that what you call the
implicit content of ID does not in fact come first & motivate explicit claims - &
perhaps even distort, quite unconsciously, data & arguments in that direction.
>
> >MN is no more restricted than ID, for the latter (regardless of what its
> >proponents may say) amounts to a declaration that some things (those that
> >have been found to be the result of divine intervention) should not be
> >investigated further by science.
>
> 1) If an event really did happen by miraculous action, then any natural
> non-miraculous explanation of this event will be WRONG. So if science was
> stopped here, we would be closer to the truth. But OEC (or ID) doesn't
> claim that scientific INVESTIGATION should cease, just that we shouldn't
> automatically assume that a natural explanation (rather than a miraculous
> explanation) will be correct.
> 2) ID does not suggest that labeling something as "designed" should be
> the end of science. For example, Behe suggests that scientists should do
> more work (not less) in trying to explain the formative pathways for systems
> that he claims are irreducibly complex. If the result of Behe's claims are
> to stimulate this type of research, has he been a science-stopper?
If we're to be encouraged to do research on "irreducible complexity", fine.
But when that complexity is said to be the result of intelligent design - meaning
God - are we then supposed to investigate God scientifically?
> >In reality, I suspect...the real objection to MN is that God has to "make a
> >difference" (i.e., show off) by doing things that science can't explain.
> >That's a rather inept version of Christian theology.
>
> Yes, but (I repeat) this is not an essential part of OEC, any more than
> Functional Integrity is an essential part of TE. I reject the idea that
> God MUST act (occasionally) by miracle in formative history. Do you reject
> the idea that God CANNOT have acted by miracle in formative history?
Yes. But I also strongly oppose a demand for miracles & the notion that
God has to work miracles to prove that he's God.
Let me add an important point on functional integrity. The full phrase is
"functional integrity of creation", & it is thus a _theological_ claim to begin with
rather than a scientific one, "creation" being a theological, rather than a
scientific, concept. It certainly has implications for science, but it should be
discussed first of all theologically. The fact that many people who don't like this
claim treat it as simply as a statement about how to do science, & in fact as a
limitation of science, while it is actually a statement about God's relationship with
the world and God's self-limitation, is an example of the refusal to deal with the
theological issues which I have complained of.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/