Charles F. Austerberry wrote:
>
> 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
****************
Hard to disagree with someone who agrees with me and let me compliment
you on your wisdom to do so.
I do believe the IC leads to a best explanation being a ID but I
position this as a best explanation as opposed to a requirement.
Indeed, MN is an insertion of philosophy into science and in that since
I do agree with Johnson that MN intrudes where it ought not and prevails
to the point where if a genetic code was translated to say JESUS SAVES
it would be considered a statistical fluke.
IC fairly understood leads to a scientific conclusion that there is no
current scientific explanation. Nature and scientists hate a vacuum and
as is well spoken in the history of science literature this is not
allowable. How often have I heard "Well, what are going to believe,
some kind of God thing." "Well, yes, and so should you."
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 15:11:48 EST