Bryan Cross wrote:
> Name one ID proponent who defines 'design' as "direct divine
> action". I'll lay money on this one ($20). Every
> design proponent that I have ever known would instantly acknowledge that
> humans can make designs (and of course they would each deny that humans
> are divine). If you want to stand by this claim that the ID movement defines
> 'design' as "direct divine action", then you will have to find a quotation
> (not taken out of context) from some notable ID person who claims that
> all design is divine design, and that there is no such thing as human
> design. Happy hunting.
Of course, advocates of ID believe that there is such a thing as "human
design."
Advocates of ID do not define "design-in-general" as necessitating "direct
divine action."
The point is: Johnson, Behe, Dembski et. al. do define
"design-in-biology" as necessitating "direct divine action."
I, and others on this discussion list, have corresponded with Johnson,
Behe, and Dembski, and asked them their opinion of the following idea:
God designed the laws of nature so that first life, and subsequent
increases in biological complexity and novelty, could self-assemble
and evolve under the continuous operation of those laws, under God's
ordinary providential oversight, without the _need_ for additional
miraculous interventions.
And we asked Johnson, Behe, and Dembski the following question:
If God designed the laws of nature to operate in this way, would
it not STILL be true that life was "intelligently designed"?
The closest I ever got to a satisfactory answer to that question was when
Behe said, in effect, that in that case we'd have no way to _detect_ that
life was intelligently designed.
What is Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument, if not an argument that
modern life forms could NOT have arisen via natural processes without some
additional direct divine action (or maybe direct space alien action)?
What is Dembski's "specified complexity" argument, if not an argument that
modern life forms could NOT have arisen via natural processes without some
additional direct divine action. (Dembski even defines "the design
inference" as the _exclusion_ of explanations based upon chance or
natural processes!)
Johnson, Dembski, Behe et. al. define "ID" in biology to exclude the
possibility that modern life forms come about through the operation natural
laws under God's ordinary providence. The necessity for direct divine
action in biological history is clearly implicit in their arguments for
ID. Self-assembly, via fine-tuned natural laws, is ruled out from their
operating definition of "design." (Does this mean that atoms, stars, and
the earth's ocean, atmosphere, and dry land were not designed?)
But you wanted a quotation.
Consider the following, taken from a post by Howard VanTill, which you can
find archived at http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0338.html
(If you wish to see more context for the quote, you'll have to ask VanTill
where this was originally published.)
=========
Howard VanTill wrote:
In a published exchange of views regarding the place of divine
intervention in the course of Creation's formational history, I challenged
Johnson to articulate his conception of "just what biological history
would have been like if left to natural phenomena without 'supernatural
assistance.'" His candid and very telling reply was,
"If God had created a lifeless world, even with oceans rich in amino acids
and other organic molecules, and thereafter had left matters alone, life
would not have come into existence. If God had done nothing but create a
world of bacteria and protozoa, it would still be a world of bacteria and
protozoa. Whatever may have been the case in the remote past, the chemicals
we see today have no observable tendency or ability to form complex plants
and animals. Persons who believe that chemicals unassisted by intelligence
can combine to create life, or that bacteria can evolve by natural
processes into complex animals, are making an a priori assumption that
nature has the resources to do its own creating. I call such persons
*metaphysical naturalists*."
============
Loren Haarsma
Calvin College
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 19:13:02 EDT