>My quote, above, was in the context of one SUB-question of ID, namely,
>"method-of-assembly" or "physical history." Within the sub-question of
>physical history, "naturalistic explanations" and Intelligent Design are
>quite compatible. The choice is rather between self-assembly and
>intervention-assembly. In this context, I would argue that there IS "some
>threshhold ... such that if our knowledge of a process exceeds that
>threshhold we count it explained naturalistically, but if our knowledge is
>below the threshhold we admit intelligent [intervention-assembly]."
>(With, of course, the proviso that even our best models can be overturned
>by new discoveries.)
>
>I hope this makes you less nervous, rather than more....
It does. Certainly if we can easily understand how something
self-assembles, then we are justified in saying we understand how the
process occurs with only the constant, law-like providential oversight of
God involved. But there certainly are threshholds where imagining
self-assembly strains credibility.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)