> (2) George Murphy expressed the following:
> >>But when ID people conclude that something is the
> result of capitalized Intelligent Design, we're supposed to believe that
> scientifically understandable processes could not have produced it and
> stop our investigation at that point.<<
>
> Well, I can't claim to speak for the "ID people", but I don't see where
> embrasure of the overall program actually entails "stop our investigation
> at that point". It may mean our investigation takes on different lines,
> but what's bad about that? If I decide that Stonehenge is not a product of
> the rocks that make it up, I will no longer interrogate the rocks for
> answers to that class of question. I don't necessarily lose interest in
> the rocks (e.g. in the properties that have made it so long-lived); but I
> also have some new avenues of research, namely, who made it, when, and
> _why_ did they make it?
OK, if the origin of terrestrial life was due to guided
panspermia, we can try to find out what ETs scattered the seeds through
the universe. But how many ID advocates have this in mind? OTOH, if ID
is due to God, how do we investigate God scientifically? Yes, there is
a correct sense in which theology is a science but it is so if we begin
from God's self=revelation, not our investigations of the natural world.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy