At 08:53 AM 09/27/2000, you wrote:
>Chris has asked (especially of ID supporters):
>
> >> > Just what *are* the conditions that must be met for naturalistic
> >> > evolution to proceed on its own to develop the kinds of complexity
> >> > we see in life today?
>
>To which I commented:
>
> >>Good question. But before an answer could be offered, I suggest you clarify
> >>what the term "naturalistic" means in this context. In ID literature there
> >>are two very different meanings for the term, but the distinction is almost
> >>never made.
> >>
> >>A *broad* (and explicit in its denial of a Creator) meaning could be built
> >>on the platform of Naturalism as a comprehensive worldview that
> included the
> >>premise, "Nature is all there is, and it needs no Creator to give it
> being."
> >>In that context, "naturalistic evolution" would mean evolution within a
> >>self-existent universe that needs no Creator as the source of its being.
> >>Specifically it needs no extra-natural source for the requisite formational
> >>capabilities that would make possible a process as remarkable as evolution.
> >>
> >>A *narrow* (and inconclusive regarding the need for a Creator) meaning
> would
> >>be simply "without need for occasional episodes of form-imposing divine
> >>intervention." This meaning would include the idea that the universe is
> >>equipped with all of the requisite formational capabilities to make
> >>evolution possible, but would make no explicit claim or denial
> regarding the
> >>source of those capabilities.
> >>
> >>Am I correct in presuming that you mean the latter?
> >
> > Chris
> > Yes, although, unless some very odd attributes must be included, I would
> > expect the answers to be compatible with full-fledged naturalism as well,
> > in that we could, possibly, rationally conceive of a purely naturally
> > occurring universe that would occasionally have planets with these
> attributes.
>
>
>Yes, the answer to your original question could be consistent with both
>naturalistic (narrow meaning) and Naturalistic (broad meaning) evolution.
>The problem is, however, that Naturalistic (broad meaning) carries with it a
>large load of metaphysical/religious propositions that are irrelevant to the
>scientific issue and specifically exclude the possibility that a world
>capable of evolving could have been brought into being by a Creator. If you
>use the broad meaning of Naturalistic in your original question, then you
>have rigged the question in such a way that no theist could answer it with
>integrity. I presume that you did not intend to do that.
>
>The natural sciences can proceed to explore what processes and events may
>have contributed to the evolutionary development of life without explicitly
>dealing with the question of the ultimate Source of the very formational
>capabilities that make evolution possible.
Chris
I agree. If we assume that a supernatural creator could exist, then the
further assumption that it *does* exist and created the Universe does not
fundamentally affect science, which still has to go about its business
naturalistically (i.e., via empirical observation, empirical testability,
etc.) and leave out any questions as to *ultimate* origin of things.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 09:34:55 EDT