Joel Z Bandstra wrote:
>
> Bert M wrote the following at the end of his recent post:
>
> 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."
>
> My comment/question:
> Does this proposition lead to a "god of the gaps"? Should we rely on God
> to explain the physical phenomena that have yet to be explained in some
> sort of scientific fashion? I don't think so. It seems to me that God
> fits just as well into understood phenomena as into phenomena that remain
> mysterious. God is just as much the God of origins as he is the God of
> space-time, of thermodynamics, of brownian motion.
***********
Quite to the contrary. ID argues that there is no reasonable exptation
of a yet undiscoverd scientific principle of organization of information
of this complexity from chaos and therefore we need a God. This is not
about filling in God where we just do not know something.
However, the other side feels that any attempt to posit that information
came from a non-physical source is a vain attempt to insert God of the
gaps.
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 18:21:10 EST