Bob,
I'm not trying to dismiss the trilobite eye example as something truly
awesome. Rather I am trying to find out what is meant by this "intelligent
design" argument. You offered the trilobite eye as an example of ID and I
am attempting to find out what makes a thing a good example that I may be
able to understand what the whole argument says (I guess I really ought to
go get one of the books that is oft referred to on this list, but bugging
you seems like more fun).
You seem to indicate that for some phenomena to qualify as intelligent
design it should be (i) irreducibly complex and (ii) unexplainable by
scientific means. Does this amount to defining intelligent design as all
physical phenomena that are not explained by science?
Under this definition, the trilobite eye may be an example of ID but the
melting of ice would not be. In this sense, the ID argument sets up an
uneven mechanism for viewing science. One where the evidence for God (or
some designer) increases as science discovers phenomena that it can't
explain but, conversely, is weakened when science successfully explains
various phenomena via natural "laws". This does two things, (i) it sets up
an argument for the existence of God that falls as science is successful
and (ii) it dilutes the matter of explained phenomena being produced by our
creative Lord.
I believe it to be Einstein who said: "There are only two ways to live
your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though
everything is a miracle."
Joel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 12:51:03 EDT