I had written:
> > I think the point goes a bit deeper than this. These particular
> > blunt instruments are used in combination with a high level of
> > intelligent design: exploiting the mechanical properties of materials
> > and using a great deal of planning.
Kevin:
> What is interesting, though, is that molecular self-organization, even when
> undirected, can produce functional macromolecules from simple precursors with
> no planning whatsoever by exploiting the properties of the precursors. So in
> fact intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite.
OK - but this was not the point you made in your post!
> > However, most of what has been said has been hostile to the thought
> > that any explanation of origins must involve intelligent design in
> > addition to natural law and chance (and non-linear dynamics).
>
> Don't forget molecular self-organization! ;-)
I've not forgotten. That fits under the heading "natural law".
> > Does
> > Kevin believe that any proposed natural explanation of origins must
> > be deficient because it neglects to address the contribution made by
> > intelligent design?
>
> No, because all science can figure out is the natural explanation itself. By
> its very nature, to suggest a contribution by intelligent design requires
> discussing the motive of the designer; that kind of discussion is beyond
> science.
But this is pre-empting the outcome. IF there is a natural
explanation, then science ought to be able to figure it out. If the
intelligent designer has acted in a way that falls outside the realm
of "natural", science will not be able to figure it out. This is
not just an issue of "motives". IMO theists should allow, in our
thinking, both natural and non-natural causation. To do otherwise
drives us towards deism.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.