> I think the point goes a bit deeper than this. These particular
> blunt instruments are used in combination with a high level of
> intelligent design: exploiting the mechanical properties of materials
> and using a great deal of planning.
>
What is interesting, though, is that molecular self-organization, even when
undirected, can produce functional macromolecules from simple precursors with
no planning whatsoever by exploiting the properties of the precursors. So in
fact intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite.
>
> > If we can do it, imagine what God can do with evolution and molecular
> > self-organization.
>
> If the analogy involves intelligent design, then I will go with this.
>
Since you and Steve were discussing the way in which God might choose to
create, involvement of intelligent design can be assumed in this case.
>
> However, most of what has been said has been hostile to the thought
> that any explanation of origins must involve intelligent design in
> addition to natural law and chance (and non-linear dynamics).
>
Don't forget molecular self-organization! ;-)
I think what most people object to is the idea that any explanation of
origins MUST involve inelligent design. I believe that most people believe
it could, but that its involvement was not mandatory.
>
> Does
> Kevin believe that any proposed natural explanation of origins must
> be deficient because it neglects to address the contribution made by
> intelligent design?
>
No, because all science can figure out is the natural explanation itself. By
its very nature, to suggest a contribution by intelligent design requires
discussing the motive of the designer; that kind of discussion is beyond
science.
>
> [Thanks to Steve and Kevin for their responses to yesterday's post.
> I'll reply as I have opportunity].
>
You are most welcome.
Kevin L. O'Brien