Bert Massie wrote (I'm selecting some portions):
>. . . 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
>explanatory 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.
>If one then accepts that current materialistic only thinking can't do
>the job what would be the best proposal for understanding origins?
>
>ID is not a scientific theory it is a philosophical conclusion from an
>arguement that current scientific theories are inadequate.
>
>I do not have evidence of an ID outside of my understanding of the
>revelations of God as understood from the scripture.
>
>Irreducible complexity does not tell us that a God exists but it does
>make the material process only explanation hard to accept and leaves one
>to search for another explanation.
>
I like Bert's position much better than the ID position I usually hear. I
agree with every one of the above statements, except I think scientific
thinking about the really big, open, tough questions (like the origins of
life's complexity) may always be "profoundly inadequate," or at least will
be for a long, long time. Is it because evolutionary biologists using
"current materialistic-only thinking" are going down the wrong path, or is
it because they've just barely started down the right path? I don't think
we can tell. Nonetheless, science will proceed down some path. Are there
any ground rules for how to proceed? How about methodological naturalism?
Is MN necessarily anti-ID, if we agree with Bert that ID is a philosophical
position? I don't think so. Unfortunately, Behe and other ID folks seem
to think so; they claim that ID is based on scientific evidence, and they
clearly present it as an alternative to other scientific theories like
evolution. Johnson and Behe and other ID proponents are at their best when
they ferret out non-scientific *philosophical* materialism /naturalism, and
they don't have to look very hard to find such statements being made by
Sagan, Dawkins, Dennett, Provine, Wilson, etc. But, then they go on and
say that the lack of detailed, proven, gradual, step-by-step evolutionary
explanations for complex systems and structures means that those systems
and structure "must have been" (or "most probably were") "intelligently
designed" in a special manner unlike the origins of other systems and
structures that they say show no evidence of being "intelligently designed."
If only the ID folks would say "could have been" instead of "must have
been" or "most probably were," and if only the evolutionists would do
likewise when talking about their scenarios, maybe we'd be better off.
And, I think such tentativeness (humility?) probably should be used more
often not only when talking about something that one thinks could have been
intelligently designed, but also when talking about something that one
thinks could have developed on its own without any supervision or design.
Chuck Austerberry
cfauster@creighton.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 14:07:02 EST