Gordon Elliott (via Keith Miller) wrote:
>Well here is another statement, which I think we can really understand says
>the same thing:
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. *
>
>* 2/3. Do scientific research to understand the natural processes. Do this
>research just like it is presently done, and just like scientific research
>would advance if we were not to consider ID. When and if all reasonable
>human effort at explaining a structure has been exhausted, then give up. If
>future ideas might re-invigorate an area of research, don't consider that we
>have given up for all time, just temporarily until the next good idea or
>project. *
>
>* Remember that to infer design, we first have to have ruled out natural
>processes. To do so required a great deal of research, probably many many
>lifetimes. If we have not ruled out natural processes, we can not yet infer
>design, because this was the statement of the 'algorithm'. We keep
>discovering more and more details of natural process that can explain
>evolution, and to stop this part of the search in order to support an
>argument from ignorance would be foolish. *
This is exactly what I was trying to say last week about methodological
naturalism. There is no convenient point at which we can "draw the line",
i.e., where natural science should give up searching for natural
explanations to observable phenomena. To do so, is to stop doing natural
science, to stop learning about the function and formative history of God's
real Creation.
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 16:34:56 EDT