>This is just a seed of an idea, but so far, I think it can be tested and
>corrolated with knowledge. It would have certain predictions. It is broad
>and affects even non-biological activity. It even suggests why mass
>extinctions aren't merely random occurances, but part of the progression
>towards the success of this purpose.
>As to what Glenn has said: while the ID idea may have originated in its
>present form from Christian thinkers, if it were only a comment on Christian
> philosophy and ideology(however true I may believe it to be), it is removed
>from the venue of science. Therefore, my suggestion is that even an
>agnostic may comprehend this purpose as I have stated and apply it to
>scientific inquiry. Personal revelation may have guided science, but
>science does not comment on religious truth.
>What Brian is saying, is that this purpose must be able to be subjected to
>scientific scrutiny. Certainly, each scientist can have their own "divine
>revelation", but we can see who is right by which theory is the most
>explanatory and conforms with data the best. If this revelation cannot be
>tested, then it falls out of the ability of science to comment on it.
>Any comments?
>Thanks,
>Ami Chopine
Hi, I like it. I am grateful to Christians like Johnson for challenging
materialistic science, but I wish this debate were less secular. Recognizing
the universe is the result of some highly complex design would not prove
Christianity or any other form of Theism, although it doesn't rule Theism out
as materialistic science seems to do. "Design" merely suggests the universe
is not a meaningless accident. The purpose of the design well might be to do
what it appears to be doing--creating a universe capable of understanding
itself.
Bertvan