> I can
> summarize my version of ID by saying (as I agreed with Van Till) that
> there is evidence for design in nature, and that the design the
> evidence points to is not an illusion, and that the multitude of
> designs were very unlikely to have been the result of mindlessness.
> Behe sees a crafty hand and the molecular level that rules out (in his
> view) darwinism/gradualism (not evolution in general as he clearly
> states in his book. At what length scale and at what time scale are
> we ready to rule out the creator's crafty hand even if He used/uses
> 'natural' means when we _know_ that there are length scales and time
> scales we know nothing of? He may very well say Where were you when I
> laid the foundations of the world?]
This is a point that George Murphy, using different words, made a while
back (which I hope to run in an up-coming ASAN):
"I think in most versions of progressive creationism the intervals between
divine creative works (as distinguished from the ongoing work of
providence) are relatively long. But logically, if the intervals were made
sufficiently numerous and short, and the "jumps" relatively small,
[progressive creation] would be indistinguishable from evolution as far as
scientific observation was concerned. The theological question would be
whether or not the distinction between a lot of "creative" works and a
continuous "providential" work really is necessary."
(Ed, since we're both into control theory, isn't this a lot like viewing
continuous sampled-data systems from the z-domain (discrete
complex-frequency domain) versus viewing discrete systems from the s-domain
using sampled-data theory?)
What this suggests to me is that whether God was discrete or continuous in
how he created, perhaps this isn't a basic issue. Perhaps it's like
differential vs matrix equation formulations of quantum mechanics. However,
as this group has dwelled on in the past, there are numerous mistaken
impressions about God or theology one can get from inadequately expressed
notions of evolutionary or progressive creation. Personally, I'm content to
presently view the issue as largely epistemological instead of ontological
and await further empirical discoveries.
Dennis L. Feucht
Innovatia Laboratories
American Scientific Affiliation Newsletter Editor
Great Lakes Rocket Society
14554 Maplewood Road
Townville, Pennsylvania 16360
(814)789-2100
dfeucht@toolcity.net