On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:08:06 -0500 "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
writes:
> David Campbell wrote:
>
> > >Either nature indicates a designer or it doesn't. One cannot
> claim that an
> > >underlying teleology is necessary to explain why things work and
> then disparage
> > >the design argument. One must either deny that an underlying
> teleology is
> > >necessary or accept some form of the design argument.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by the design argument?
>
> Roughly, an argument claiming that nature indicates a designer, that
> a designer is
> needed to explain some feature of nature.
>
This is a minimal description. In practice, such ID adherents at Behe and
Dembski assume that the input is non-natural.
>
> > It is likely that Johnson does not deliberately reject the
> doctrine of
> > providence. However, the identification of methodological
> naturalism as
> > implying metaphysical naturalism denies the doctrine of
> providence. This
> > also is getting back to the question of how you define ID; what I
> have seen
> > seems to define design as direct divine action.
>
> First, concerning your claim that the statement 'methodological
> naturalism implies
> metaphysical naturalism' denies the doctrine of providence. How does
> that follow?
> Apparently you think that methodological naturalism is compatible
> with the doctrine
> of divine providence. Well, lets spell it out. The methodological
> naturalist
> *always* seeks for, insists upon and presumes the existence of (even
> without any
> supporting evidence) a natural cause. The methodological naturalist
> does not make
> exceptions, for then he (or she) is not a methodological naturalist.
> Therefore,
> there is no room for divine causation of any sort, not even
> providential. Creation,
> revelation, etc., the methodological naturalist will pursue natural
> causes for them
> all. The result is that God and providence are eventually shaved
> right out of the
> picture, or, more accurately, natural causes are posited to explain
> why we ever
> believed in them in the first place. This sort of naturalistic
> deconstruction has
> already been done with ethics, free will, afterlife, religion,
> consciousness,
> altruism, etc. Methodological naturalism is a universal acid; you
> can't contain it
> behind barriers of any sort. Once you let it in, it eats up
> everything.
>
This is pure BS. It is the slippery slope carried to ridiculous extremes.
All that is required for methodological naturalism (for any but the
doctrinaire) is the recognition that some problems are not amenable to
scientific explanation.
> Second, regarding your claim that ID defines design as direct divine
> action, that is
> simply not true. Del Ratzch, for example, has the classic John
> 3:16-on-the-back-of-the-Moon example. Even if we were able to trace
> the causes of
> the formation of the letters spelling out John 3:16 on the back of
> the Moon all the
> way back to the Big Bang, we would still be justified, rational, and
> right in
> concluding that that verse was the product of intelligent design.
> That is just one
> counterexample. Here is another. ID is compatible with design by ETs
> a la Crick and
> panspermia. But that wouldn't be the case if ID defined design as
> "direct divine
> action". Therefore, ID does not define design as "direct divine
> action". Of course,
> many ID proponents believe that the designer is God and that some of
> these designs
> were accomplished directly. But that involves further inferences
> from the mere
> existence of design in nature.
>
> - Bryan
>
So one person inserts an impossibility. This is nothing but special
pleading.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 16:44:04 EDT