Just three points in response to Stephen.
It's really too bad to hear the same line I get from Phil Johnson on this.
I.e. that I'm some poor indoctrinated slob who can't get out of my own
little "theistic-naturalistic" world. Isn't it at least possible to
consider that the evidence for design isn't that compelling and that's the
reason I don't buy into the ID scheme?
Second, I think that Stephen's "canvas as a whole" doesn't refer to what
I'm talking about. I think that the ID crowd's "canvas as a whole" refers
to order in the universe, the laws of nature, etc. and not to particular
instantiations. My position is that even things that appear to be random
(from our perspective and from the perspective of our science) ARE NOT from
God's perspective. So a random mutation is only random from our perspective
and our science would detect it as random. But it is not random, it is
highly purposeful in God's maintenance of the universe and it accomplishes
exactly what he wants it to accomplish. Personally, I think that Mike Behe
is comfortable with this sort of divine action--he just wants to argue that
it is detectable, i.e. that we can tell the difference between this sort of
divinely controlled randomness and the kind of randomness that science
talks about (as if there is a difference).
Finally, Stephen's accusation concerning my naturalism is just plain false.
I do believe that God is free to act in an irregular manner (i.e.
miraculously "intervene") and I believe that He has done it. Those acts are
recorded for us in scripture in cases such as the resurrection of Christ,
the turning of water into wine at the wedding, walking on water, the
creation of the human soul, creation ex nihilo, etc. There is nothing in my
worldview that prevents me from admitting to such "non-natural" occurences.
I just don't happen to believe that scripture requires me to see such
irregular activity as taking place elsewhere in the origin account AND I
don't find the alleged weaknesses of a "naturalistic" origins compelling.
(They seem to be wishful thinking on the part of people want to argue
against those who wrongfully conclude that atheism is a logical consequence
of biological evolution. Now I'll be the first to admit that it is a bit of
a mystery as to what is compelling or not compelling to different people.
I'm sure I will be taken to task for accusing these guys of "wishful
thinking" because they, no doubt, find the alleged weaknesses of a
"naturalistic" origins compelling--even within a theistic framework. I hope
however that psychologizing the whole debate, for both of us, is not the
end of the story, and that rational discourse can continue.) Let's do admit
that the ID design conclusion is a negative conclusion: design is the
conclusion we draw when the "chance and law" explanation falls short. I
personally don't think that the "chance and law" explanation has fallen
short and, as I explained in my previous post, "chance and law"
explanations don't threaten the existence or work of God; indeed it is his
decree and providence that establishes those very "chance and law"
explanations.
TG
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 19:37:14 EDT