Allan Harvey wrote:
>
> At 07:32 AM 3/7/00 -0800, Bert Massie wrote:
> >Joel Cannon wrote:
> > >
> > > I wish to ask a question to Bert and others that moves in a different
> > > direction:
> > >
> > > Was the Grand Canyon (for example) intelligently designed?
> > >
> >
> >I make no claim that each feature on the landscape of the universe was
> >ID'ed although some Christians would make an arguement about everything
> >being the will of God. Obviously this is not the real issue in the
> >debate on origins and I think you know this.
>
> But that *is* a key issue. To talk about ID, we have to know what it
> means. Was the Grand Canyon the product of God's Intelligent Design? What
> about the Moon, which the Bible specifically tells us God created? As
> Christians, I think we have to say that the answer to those questions is
> "yes", and remains so even though we have "natural" explanations for their
> origin.
>
> So, if we can affirm God as the Designer and Creator of the Grand Canyon
> and the Moon despite their "natural" origins, what is *qualitatively*
> different about the development of life that makes people insist that only
> "unnatural" explanations count as Intelligent Design there? If we could
> just admit that it is "OK" for God's creative design to get carried out
> naturally in any area (rather than taking a different approach with biology
> than we do with geology or astronomy), then we can discuss *how* God
> carried out that design without putting ourselves on an apologetic
> God-of-the-Gaps tightrope where God's status as Creator depends on whether
> or not Behe et al. are correct about their science.
>
> Separately, Bert wrote:
> >God's owership is certainly not an issue for me but the need for a God
> >(ID) is the issue outside of the brotherhood.
>
> And that is another central issue -- whether "God-of-the-Gaps" apologetics
> (which is certainly what one is doing if one is trying to show a "need for
> God" to explain nature) is a wise thing. It is certainly dangerous in that
> every new thing science explains counts as points against God. Maybe we
> should consider the possibility that biology *might not* have detectable
> gaps showing a "need for God" (in other words, that God may not show
> himself in the way Richard Dawkins and Phil Johnson think he should), and
> focus apologetically on the more Biblically justified need for God, namely
> humans' sinful state and need for new life in Christ.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
> | Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
> | National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
> | 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************
Not exactly and perhaps my view is different from the classic ID view.
I do not contend that irreducible complexity etc. "prove" the existence
of a designer. What I think it does do is point to a lack of
explainatory power of the current scientific theories. In point I think
it says that current scientific thinking is profoundly inadequate.
Therefore:
We cannot assert (philosophically) that we do not need an intelligent
designer because the science can give us support from a materialistic
only paradaigm. I think Carl Sagan may put the best when he argues
that material processes are completely adequate and therefore why not
skip a step and forget this God thing.
Keep in mind that we can only disprove theories not prove them.
If one then accepts that current materialistic only thinking can't do
the job what would be the best proposal for understanding origins?
God of the Gaps
Science of the Gaps
This is the appologetic issue. Now we have other affirmative reasons to
believe in God and for us Christians it has to do with a little book.
But, for those of the materialistic bent, Science of the Gaps is the
bias.
But, for me and my household, I shall chose the carpenter.
Bert M.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 16:23:06 EST