Dear Steve J.,
Allow me to respond in just a few areas, ones which I perceive to be the
most significant. Please interpret this post as a reluctant one on my
part. I see you as a friend and an ally, and I think it's unfortunate
that we should get into a debate. I can see though that, even though we
agree over the essence of life's design and the One who is responsible
for it, you are a purist who feels he must correct inaccuracy -- in
whatever source. That's ok. So am I.
(1) When I concede that I my beliefs are not scientific, it is primarily
due to the "ought" of science. As I wrote before, I agree with the
traditional scientific approach that science "ought" to explain natural
phenomena by means of natural causes, laws, processes, etc. This
procedure should be pushed as far as it possibly can go. This does not
mean that I think science "can" do so across the board, but my beliefs
about science's inability do not affect how I think science "ought" to
work. I've said all this before.
As a result of this basic presupposition of mine, I cannot conclude that
my ideas regarding design of living things are "scientific." To be
"scientific" is to discover physical laws, processes, causes, etc., that
explain the occurrence of a given phenomenon. In short, a theory is
"scientific" when it satisfies what science "ought" to do. I do not make
any claims that I have done so in the case of origins, and neither does
the ID movement (correct me if I'm wrong).
My perception of ID is that it wants to change the rules of science so
that it can lay claim to the label "scientific." This is so even though
the ID theory gives no explanations how life could have occurred, finds
no natural causes for life's existence, and even claims that science may
not fulfill its goal of discovering natural processes in the case of
life's formation (again, correct me if I'm wrong). It may be just a huge
misunderstanding on my part, but if we say that science cannot find a
natural explanation for the advent of life, then no truly "scientific"
theory exists regarding such events.
This is why I'm not afraid to concede that my ideas regarding life's
origins are not "scientific." It was a huge mistake on the part of the
"scientific" creationists to claim their theory was "science." They did
so even though the Bible itself clearly says that creation is strictly a
matter of "faith" (Heb 11:3). They were skewered for such claims and
have never recovered. I see ID making the same mistake, all because they
have self-defined notions of what "science" should be like. I say again:
if we don't fulfill what science "ought" to do, then we're not being
"scientific."
(2) I find the claims of ID to be nothing less than mind boggling. You
seem to allow all the following:
-- Things are designed, but they may not have a designer.
-- Things are designed, but they could have arisen naturally.
-- Things are designed, but this does not rule out evolution.
-- Earth things are designed, but other things may not be
even though they might display the same characteristics.
It seems to me that ID'ers have defined a notion called "design." But
then they have placed so many qualifications, provisos, and stipulations
on this definition that the term has been emptied of all meaning. It
some ways it is so broad as to include anything. In other ways it is so
restricted as to include nothing.
(3) You cannot claim "design" and then say that it has no necessary
implications. To say that "design" does not imply a designer is to
contradict everything we know about design. This is not being very
"scientific."
To then say we cannot reason as to the design of the designer is to empty
"design" of its so-called scientific content. If design is "scientific,"
then we are completly within the confines of science when formulating
hypotheses regarding the "design" of the designer. The possibilities of
designed designers or undesigned designers are completely scientific
hypotheses if the very notion of "design" is "scientific." We should be
able to test the validity of such possibilities by scientific means, e.g.
my using the finite age of the Universe to rule out designed designers.
When you don't accept such a procedure, saying that it's beyond the realm
of science, I see this as a self-contradiction. We cannot have it both
ways. It comes across as a tacit concession that design may not be so
scientific after all.
Steve C.
P.S. Please call me "Steve." The only time anyone ever called me
"Steven" was when my dad got mad at me. (-:
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 04 2000 - 00:53:42 EDT