I have been listening in for a couple of weeks, and have enjoyed the
discussion. I have a couple of questions, though, that I hope
to understand better with input from you. To disclose my own
viewpoint, I'm probably in what is referred to here as the "TE" camp.
First, I've seen it implied a few times (sorry, don't remember who),
that methodological naturalism doesn't have recourse to hypothesizing
intelligent design as an explanation for features of nature. I
am curious how this relates to panspermia hypotheses. It seems to
me that such hypotheses *do* appeal to intelligent design--namely,
that of aliens--and that they *are* contenders within the methodological
naturalist framework. That is, I don't see anything about panspermia,
even very aggressive panspermia where aliens land and unload dinosaurs,
that is outside the framework of methodological naturalism. I would
enjoy hearing more about this (perceived, at any rate) dichotomy.
Second, there is another question that the above raises. Suppose
that intelligent design theorists are successful in proving that some
biological features exhibit design that could only be 'top-down' (that
is, from some personal intelligent being). (There is an attendant
question as to how that is to be isolated, but I'll leave that alone. :-))
How do intelligent design theorists hope to argue that such intelligent
design is God's handiwork as opposed to that of some aliens? (Or do
they hope to argue that?) That is, it seems to me that the goal of the
intelligent design advocates is more ambitious than a demonstration
that some biological features were designed purposefully by some person--
I don't see how that aim is incompatible with methodological naturalism,
as I stated above. It seems to me that the goal is rather to argue
that *God* is responsible for putting the design into designed features
in some particularly instantaneous way (as opposed to in some evolutionary
way). (I'd better stop before I ask more about why intelligent design
theorists are interested in *this* particular method... :-))
Thanks!
-Greg