Bert M wrote the following at the end of his recent post:
One could argue quite differently. To deny irreducible complexity and
the like is really denying a very obvious observation and to me this is
not the issue. Ghe support for avoiding the intelligent designer is to
argue that unknown physical principles yet to be discovered will
ultimately explaim these complex things. Thus, the arguement against ID
is to argue that there are yet to be found physical laws which when
discovered will clear all this up.
Good luck.
I call it "the science of the gaps" and "faith of our (materialistic)
fathers."
My comment/question:
Does this proposition lead to a "god of the gaps"? Should we rely on God
to explain the physical phenomena that have yet to be explained in some
sort of scientific fashion? I don't think so. It seems to me that God
fits just as well into understood phenomena as into phenomena that remain
mysterious. God is just as much the God of origins as he is the God of
space-time, of thermodynamics, of brownian motion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 18:11:24 EST