David Campbell wrote:
> >Either nature indicates a designer or it doesn't. One cannot claim that an
> >underlying teleology is necessary to explain why things work and then disparage
> >the design argument. One must either deny that an underlying teleology is
> >necessary or accept some form of the design argument.
>
> What exactly do you mean by the design argument?
Roughly, an argument claiming that nature indicates a designer, that a designer is
needed to explain some feature of nature.
> It is likely that Johnson does not deliberately reject the doctrine of
> providence. However, the identification of methodological naturalism as
> implying metaphysical naturalism denies the doctrine of providence. This
> also is getting back to the question of how you define ID; what I have seen
> seems to define design as direct divine action.
First, concerning your claim that the statement 'methodological naturalism implies
metaphysical naturalism' denies the doctrine of providence. How does that follow?
Apparently you think that methodological naturalism is compatible with the doctrine
of divine providence. Well, lets spell it out. The methodological naturalist
*always* seeks for, insists upon and presumes the existence of (even without any
supporting evidence) a natural cause. The methodological naturalist does not make
exceptions, for then he (or she) is not a methodological naturalist. Therefore,
there is no room for divine causation of any sort, not even providential. Creation,
revelation, etc., the methodological naturalist will pursue natural causes for them
all. The result is that God and providence are eventually shaved right out of the
picture, or, more accurately, natural causes are posited to explain why we ever
believed in them in the first place. This sort of naturalistic deconstruction has
already been done with ethics, free will, afterlife, religion, consciousness,
altruism, etc. Methodological naturalism is a universal acid; you can't contain it
behind barriers of any sort. Once you let it in, it eats up everything.
Second, regarding your claim that ID defines design as direct divine action, that is
simply not true. Del Ratzch, for example, has the classic John
3:16-on-the-back-of-the-Moon example. Even if we were able to trace the causes of
the formation of the letters spelling out John 3:16 on the back of the Moon all the
way back to the Big Bang, we would still be justified, rational, and right in
concluding that that verse was the product of intelligent design. That is just one
counterexample. Here is another. ID is compatible with design by ETs a la Crick and
panspermia. But that wouldn't be the case if ID defined design as "direct divine
action". Therefore, ID does not define design as "direct divine action". Of course,
many ID proponents believe that the designer is God and that some of these designs
were accomplished directly. But that involves further inferences from the mere
existence of design in nature.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 16:08:11 EDT