I wrote:
>
>>Although proponents of ID have been careful never to provide a candid
>>definition of just what it means "to be (or have been) intelligently
> designed"
>>the vast majority of their argumentation appears directed toward the
>>conclusion that "some bio-X could not have come to be formed by any
>>known natural means, therefore it must have been intelligently designed."
Mike replied:
> I should clarify that this is not how I use ID.
OK, no problem. Then what is _your_ operative answer to the question, What
does it mean to be (or have been) intelligently designed? [What kind of
action by what kind of agent?] If I recall correctly from your previous
posts, you often use the expression "intelligent intervention" in place if
"intelligent design." I happen to think that your term is a more accurate
label for what Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, et al are promoting.
> Since I am talking
> history and not philosophy, it's not a question of what is possible or
> not, it's a question of what happened.
We're all interested in that. It's a matter of how we approach a topic for
which the number of interesting questions far exceeds the number of firm
answers.
> If Howard wants to deduce
> the happening of abiogenesis with theology and philosophy, that's
> fine with me.
Thanks for the encouragement.
> But if Howard wants to convince me that abiogenesis
> actually happened in accord with his belief system, he'll need some
> old fashioned evidence that points beyond the inherently weak claim
> of "it's possible."
OK, that's your prerogative. In the meantime, biologists and biochemists are
daily adding to our knowledge of the formational capabilities of biotic
systems in the universe. My suspicion is that the full list of these
capabilities will be found to have no gaps that would have required
"intelligent interventions" to bring us to the present state of affairs.
I freely admit that this expectation proceeds from my belief that the
formational economy of the universe was conceptualized by a Creator for the
accomplishment of a comprehensive purpose, and that the robustness of this
menu of formational capabilities is a manifestation of the Creator's
creativity and generosity. It is also encouraged by the growth of scientific
knowledge of the formational capabilities that contribute to this "robust
formational economy."
I find it far more fitting (for me, at least) to celebrate the robustness of
the Creation's formational economy than to be engaged in a search for
empirical evidence of formational capabilities that may have been withheld
from it.
You are welcomed to adopt a different perspective and to articulate it
candidly.
Cordially,
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 22 2000 - 09:09:47 EDT