Mike,
This exchange began with a comment I made to Steve Clark re the claims that
most ID proponents make about the insufficiency of 'natural processes' to
make possible the formation of first life, particular biotic structures,
etc.
You didn't like my characterization of ID and said that you had a different
meaning for ID.
I asked for your definition and you responded with one.
Now it seems that I still fail to understand just what you mean when you say
that something was, in the formational history of the universe,
intelligently designed. My use of the label, "extra-natural assembly," seems
to fall short.
OK, I'm still interested to know what you mean. One of your most recent
comments was:
> That is, the key role of intelligent intervention is not a question of
> forming life
> or chordates (as those things might very well have formed at some point
> without intelligent intervention), but in explaining why *this* reality
> exists rather than a near
> infinite number of other possible realities that could have existed.
I have a feeling that our positions are fairly close here. Am I correct in
presuming that by "this reality" you mean "this particular universe,
complete with all of its resources, potentialities, and capabilities"?
If so, then we would also agree, I presume, that the existence of this
universe is not self-explanatory but requires a Source of its being. The act
of giving being to such a universe is, I believe, best labeled "creation"
rather than "intervention".
Given the character of this universe, it seems clear to me that it was
'intelligently designed' in the specific sense of having been thoughtfully
conceptualized for the accomplishment of a purpose.
Are we in agreement so far?
By the way, I'm not trying to pick an argument, just trying to figure what
*your* meaning of ID is.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 17:50:15 EDT