On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:07:43 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>>BH>OK, fine, but it is not necessary for ID to appeal to God.
>SJ>First, Brian now acknowledges that the "Intelligent Design model"
>does specifiy a "mechanism". This is in contradistinction to
>naturalistic evolution which has no specified mechanism, eg. for
>"prebiotic evolution."
BH>I acknowledeged a "mechanism" but certainly not a mechanism if
>mechanism is to be taken in the scientific sense. In other
>words, I assumed that you put the word in quotation marks to make a
>distinction between things like chemical reactions and
>"And God said, `Let there be...,' and there was...".
Brian "assumed" wrong. As he well knows, I always put my opponents
words in quotation marks.
>BH>...what I'm interested in knowing is what mechanisms would such a
>civilization use to create life. If you can't specifiy these then
>this panspermia variant is, according to your line of reasoning
>above, vacuous.
>SJ>No again. An advanced civilization would presumably create life
>in the same way that naturalistists believe they will one day be
>able to do it, with intelligent design:
BH>Presumably???????
More word-traps from Brian? Yes, "Presumably" - no one knows for
sure that it is possible for alien or human "intelligent design" to
"create life". Maybe only God can create life. Who knows? Scientists
think they can. Crick and Orgel two eminent scientists who proposed
the Directed Panspermia theory think that an advanced civilization
could create life with advanced technology.
BH>You said previously to SC "Unless some sort of detailed
>mechanism is specified, it is vacuous ...". And now presumably?
>Please Steve, give me the detailed mechanism.
See above.
Group
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:02:12 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
>SJ>No. The "Intelligent Design model" does specifiy a "mechanism",
>the word of command of the "Intelligent Designer':... (Gn 1:3,6,9,
>11,14,20,24,26; Ps 33:6; Jn 1:1-3).
>BH>OK, fine, but it is not necessary for ID to appeal to God.
SJ>...Brian now acknowledges that the "Intelligent Design model"
>does specifiy a "mechanism". This is in contradistinction to
>naturalistic evolution which has no specified mechanism, eg. for
>"prebiotic evolution."
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:36:43 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
Bill>Is anyone else wondering whether the term "mechanism" is being
>used consistently here? Evolutionary biologists, biochemists,
>geneticists, etc. have identified a number of mechanisms --
>crossover, mutation, selection, etc. that in principle could
>account for the diversity of life we see today.
Disagree. *None* of these naturalistic "mechnaims" are adequate to
explain "the diversity of life we see today". An Intelligent Designer
could have used and directed these "mechanisms" but of themselves
they are inadequate:
"Perhaps the best way to start is by answering Howard Van Till's
question: just what would biological history have been like if left
to natural phenomena without God's participation? 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 living cells, and single-celled organisms 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." (Johnson P.E., "God and
Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson",
First Things, June 1993)
Bill>As a Christian I don't believe the mechanisms are the whole story.
>Steve has rightly pointed out what is missing: the initiating and
>sustaining word of God. I think though that God's actions are not
>properly called mechanisms. Rather they are initiation and
>direction.
Thanks to Bill - I agree. But I was using Brian's term "mechanism".
BH>I agree with Bill here and would add that use of the word
>mechanism in the context of how God works leaves me with a funny
>taste in my mouth...
This is interesting. If man can use "mechanisms", why cannot God?
BH>Anyway, I didn't object to Steve on this point because I assumed
>that the quoatation marks about mechanism was an indication that
>the word was not being used with its usual meaning, i.e. that
>"mechanism" was not to be taken as a physical mechanism. Thus,
>I wrote "OK, fine, but it is not necessary for ID to appeal to God."
I overlooked this point. I agree that "ID" could be intelligent
designers other than "God", ie. aliens, time-travellers, or
fraudulent humans, but metaphysical theists will see "ID" as
good evidence for "God'.
BH>Perhaps I was reading too much into the " " as Steve put both
>"Intelligent Design model" and "prebiotic evolution" in quotes
>in his reply. But then he uses "mechanism" with "Intelligent Design
>model" and mechanism with "prebiotic evolution", so I'm confused
>again.
See above. Usually my quotes are to show I am using the very words
that my opponent has used. I hope this clears up Brian's "confused'
state!
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------