Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I'll pick a few for continuing the conversation.
>
> > I don't criticize the view
> > that maybe God does intervene and create supernaturally sometimes ....
> > I refrain from criticizing such a view because science itself can't
> > rule out the supernatural. Our ignorance of how the first living cell
> > arose logically allows for the possibility that it happened in a manner
> > that in principle could never be explained by natural science.
>
> Correct. I presume that God is able to act in any way that is consistent
> with God's being and will. That's why I do not offer the "fully-gifted
> creation" perspective or the "robust formational economy principle" as
> theses that can be empirically or logically proved, but as concepts that I
> am inclined to hold (with the required tentativeness) for various
> theological and evidential reasons, even if some are necessarily
> circumstantial.
>
> > So-called *scientific* theories invoking "intelligent design" are flawed
> > for the simple reason that science also can't tell us when all possible
> > natural explanations have been exhausted. We should readily admit that we
> > can't even imagine a plausible natural explanation for some things. To
> > assert that no plausible natural explanation could ever exist in such
> > cases, however, would be presumptuous. How can we dismiss all natural
> > causes when we don't even know what we are dismissing? The lack of a
> > plausible natural explanation would constitute evidence for "intelligent
> > design" only if we could somehow know that we've imagined, analyzed, and
> > eliminated all of the "non-design" alternatives.
>
> Well said. I heartily agree. [I assume here that you, as do I, see ID as a
> set of claims that certain structures or forms could not have come to be
> formed 'naturally' (that is, by the use of their God-given capabilities) but
> must have been assembled (at least the first time) by the form-imposing
> action of some unnamed extra-natural agent.]
>
> Howard Van Till
************
Not exactly. The delima is that ID cannot be proven nor can any other
contention on this subject of origins. We argue to the ID belief based
on the "beauty principle," Okums Razor, or whatever we find appealing.
ID says that based on current scientific mechanisms we cannot accept
thus and so being in existence based on random events or we cannot posit
a path for something to come into existance because gradualism is the
means of choice and we face the quandary of irreducible complexity.
Then we argue that becuase of the high level of complex information and
its sudden appearance as obseved that it had to come from some
non-random cause and suggest that an intelligent designer fits the
dictates of Mr. Okum.
One could argue quite differently. To deny irreducible complexity and
the like is really denying a very obvious observation and to me this is
not the issue. Ghe support for avoiding the intelligent designer is to
argue that unknown physical principles yet to be discovered will
ultimately explaim these complex things. Thus, the arguement against ID
is to argue that there are yet to be found physical laws which when
discovered will clear all this up.
Good luck.
I call it "the science of the gaps" and "faith of our (materialistic)
fathers."
Bert M.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 16:25:40 EST