Dear Bert,
The best man can do is to develop a mathematical theory that explains
everything. Imagine, however, what is being asserted that a theory made by a
human that brings that very same human into being ????? However, such a
theory cannot even bring anything into being, theories are descriptive not
prescriptive. The question still remains, Who or What brought everything
into being?
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
To: Allan Harvey <aharvey@boulder.nist.gov>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: ID (fwd)
>Allan Harvey wrote:
>>
>> At 07:32 AM 3/7/00 -0800, Bert Massie wrote:
>> >Joel Cannon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I wish to ask a question to Bert and others that moves in a different
>> > > direction:
>> > >
>> > > Was the Grand Canyon (for example) intelligently designed?
>> > >
>> >
>> >I make no claim that each feature on the landscape of the universe was
>> >ID'ed although some Christians would make an arguement about everything
>> >being the will of God. Obviously this is not the real issue in the
>> >debate on origins and I think you know this.
>>
>> But that *is* a key issue. To talk about ID, we have to know what it
>> means. Was the Grand Canyon the product of God's Intelligent Design?
What
>> about the Moon, which the Bible specifically tells us God created? As
>> Christians, I think we have to say that the answer to those questions is
>> "yes", and remains so even though we have "natural" explanations for
their
>> origin.
>>
>> So, if we can affirm God as the Designer and Creator of the Grand Canyon
>> and the Moon despite their "natural" origins, what is *qualitatively*
>> different about the development of life that makes people insist that
only
>> "unnatural" explanations count as Intelligent Design there? If we could
>> just admit that it is "OK" for God's creative design to get carried out
>> naturally in any area (rather than taking a different approach with
biology
>> than we do with geology or astronomy), then we can discuss *how* God
>> carried out that design without putting ourselves on an apologetic
>> God-of-the-Gaps tightrope where God's status as Creator depends on
whether
>> or not Behe et al. are correct about their science.
>>
>> Separately, Bert wrote:
>> >God's owership is certainly not an issue for me but the need for a God
>> >(ID) is the issue outside of the brotherhood.
>>
>> And that is another central issue -- whether "God-of-the-Gaps"
apologetics
>> (which is certainly what one is doing if one is trying to show a "need
for
>> God" to explain nature) is a wise thing. It is certainly dangerous in
that
>> every new thing science explains counts as points against God. Maybe we
>> should consider the possibility that biology *might not* have detectable
>> gaps showing a "need for God" (in other words, that God may not show
>> himself in the way Richard Dawkins and Phil Johnson think he should), and
>> focus apologetically on the more Biblically justified need for God,
namely
>> humans' sinful state and need for new life in Christ.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> | 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." |
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>**********************
>Not exactly and perhaps my view is different from the classic ID view.
>
>I do not contend that irreducible complexity etc. "prove" the existence
>of a designer. What I think it does do is point to a lack of
>explainatory power of the current scientific theories. In point I think
>it says that current scientific thinking is profoundly inadequate.
>Therefore:
>
>We cannot assert (philosophically) that we do not need an intelligent
>designer because the science can give us support from a materialistic
>only paradaigm. I think Carl Sagan may put the best when he argues
>that material processes are completely adequate and therefore why not
>skip a step and forget this God thing.
>
>Keep in mind that we can only disprove theories not prove them.
>
>If one then accepts that current materialistic only thinking can't do
>the job what would be the best proposal for understanding origins?
>
> God of the Gaps
>
> Science of the Gaps
>
>This is the appologetic issue. Now we have other affirmative reasons to
>believe in God and for us Christians it has to do with a little book.
>
>But, for those of the materialistic bent, Science of the Gaps is the
>bias.
>
>But, for me and my household, I shall chose the carpenter.
>
>Bert M.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 08:57:43 EST