From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 09:29:19 EDT
I would venture to say that everything is designed! Even the simplest
element we use to base our physical theories on. For instance, the
physical vacuum must be assumed by those who claim that everything that
is came into existence from fluctuations of the vacuum.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 5:53 PM
To: George Murphy; Iain Strachan (asa)
Cc: ASA; Dick Fischer
Subject: Re: "Design up to Scratch?" (The Wit and Wisdom of Michael
Roberts)
Exactly, George has highlighted the problems and inconsistency of ID.
That
is all there is to say. As far as I can see ID shifts the goal posts at
will. It's not cricket as we say over here.
Michael
> Iain -
> You've omitted part of my post that, I think, makes my point clearer.
To
> repeat:
>
> "OTOH, we can certainly say, from the standpont of faith (which is
where
we
> ought to begin theological arguments, /fides quarens intellectum/)
that
some
> structures are designed even if we have perfectly good explanations
for
them in terms of
> natural processes. IDers have been reticent about answering the
question
"is the
> carbon-12 nucleus intelligently designed"?" The reason is pretty
clear:
They don't
> want to say "No" because that would suggest that the rather remarkable
"coincidences"
> which make the triple alpha process possible are indeed just
coincidences
which God
> wasn't especially concerned to make happen. But if they say "Yes"
then
they have an
> example of an intelligently designed structure which can be explained
in
terms of known
> physical laws of nuclear & EM interactions. This then suggests that
other
such
> structures which seem to be intelligently designed can be explained in
terms of
> secondary causes without the explicit invocation of a designer."
>
> This is a response to Behe's statement cited above (rather than a
defence
of
> Michael's argument). God can "design" things in the world by acting
through natural
> processes - which is what the ideas of concurrence and governanec in
traditional
> doctrines of providence speak of. If IDers would make clear their
agreement with this
> principle to begin with then I would have fewer problems with their
arguments. But
> again, I understand why they hesitate to make a point of this. For if
they agree that
> C-12 (e.g.) is "intelligently designed," though explicable in terms of
known natural
> processes, then when some other structure which is essential for life
is
encountered, it
> will be natural for a Christian to suggest that God brought it about
through natural
> processes also.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 09:29:33 EDT