Chris
The problem is that that theory is no improvement over pure ordinary
naturalism.
Anne
>>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.
Chris
Again, I don't see how it can be tested and distinguished from naturalism,
since it predicts essentially what many purely naturalistic theories also
predict but without the non-naturalistic "baggage" to drag along.
Anne
>>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?
>
Bertvan
>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.
Chris
Again, since that's what a naturalistic universe with any number of
variations would do also, I don't see how you can propose to test it, unless
you can show that it's violating laws of chemistry or physics by occurring
in ways that contradict those laws.