>I feel you are unable to comprehend that "nature [as] a closed system
>of material causes where intelligent causes are excluded" differs
>significantly from a belief in a Creator who created an orderly
>universe and may intervene as he chooses (ID is indeed a tautology
>within this tradition), not just in the way Phillip Johnson, Carl
>Sagan or anyone else says he must. Rather than accommodation to
>Darwin, this second possibility is part of a theological tradition
>that precedes Darwin, and is much stronger than William Paley, your
>antecedent. Arguably, the unquestioning acceptance of Paley's design
>apologetic was a primary reason why Darwin could be so destructive to
>Christian belief (Evidence: Richard Dawkins still gleefully pretends that
>Paley is Christian theology!).
Our universe, which may be a closed system, is certainly not devoid of
intelligent causes unless, of course, you want to exclude humans. I believe
only a fool would say that we do not observe design in our study of
nature--witness the very powerful mathematics that we use in our attempts to
describe the mere physical aspect of nature alone, forget the more difficult
problem of the existence of life. The real question is how do you explain
the existence of design. I find it very difficult, an almost unsurmountable
problem, to explain design by mere physical theories. Even if a Theory of
Everything (TOE) is found, such a theory cannot bring into existence that
which it purports to describe. It seems, therefore, that the only
alternative is an Intelligent Designer who is also a Creator. Note that
saying that life on earth come from outer space only shift the basic problem
elsewhere. We should also note the nonsense associated with waiting for such
TOE while we have to live our short lives making all sorts of moral choices
in the meantime. We must choose a worldview which allows us to make such
choices while we keep on doing our science. The Christian is on very solid
grounds.
Moorad