Bryan R. Cross wrote:
.................
> [I think Howard has a good point about the way the terminology 'ID vs. natural
> causes' implicitly implies the rejection of providence. So I am going to refer to
> intelligent design by direct action (IDDA) as opposed to intelligent design by
> natural causes (IDNC).]
Virtually all Christians agree that God has "designs" for the universe, and I
can see no reason why a quite strict methodological naturalism should not agree that
such designs can be accomplished by natural causes. That of course leaves open the
question about what features are designed.
But if such features are indeed IDNC and the natural causes are discovered by
science then then claim that there is an intelligence making use of those processes
becomes, as far as natural science is concerned, superfluous: Science will have
explained yet another feature of the world "though God were not given" & the idea of ID
will in this case have just been a stop-gap.
> For example, if we take Doug's answer about the
> trilobite eye, and apply it to the fine-tuning of the universe, science should
> forever go on looking for an explanation by IDNC.
There is an obvious difference here. Everybody (except maybe solipsistic
trilobites) recognizes that trilobites are embedded in a universe which was "here" long
before they were & is much larger than they are. Thus it is not unreasonable to seek
the cause of features of the trilobite eye in processes of that universe. But it is not
generally admitted that the universe itself has such a "larger" environment. We can
speculate about parallel universes in various ways but that is speculation and no more
logically compelling than belief in a creator who transcends the universe.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 17:16:36 EDT