On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 12:52:11 EDT Bertvan@aol.com writes:
[...]
> Most people engaged in these discussions have strong convictions and
> I doubt
> minds are ever changed. The most we can hope for is to understand
> each
> other's positions. My attempt to understand yours is sincere, so
> please
> correct me when I misrepresent you.
[...]
Yes, I need to clarify where I stand. Here's a brief synopsis:
(1) I am against the Darwinist model of evolution. This means RM & NS.
(2) Am I against evolution, that is, the concept of common descent with
modification? Right now, I leans towards a variation of this idea. I do
not tend to think that all life came from the same original lifeform. I
believe that God created different kinds of lifeforms or kinds of
populations of lifeforms. For example, He may have created the original
plant(s) and then somewhere else at someplace else He may have created
the original animal(s). From this original specimen or group of
specimens came the diversity that we see today in its geographical
distribution.
(3) The mechanism of this diversification is as yet some undiscovered
built-in genetic action (in my belief). God made life so that it "wants"
to diversify, filling in particular ecological niches.
(4) As for the origins of humans, I tend to believe that humans were
specially created.
(5) As for the age of the Earth and Universe, the jury is still out. I
know that a literal reading of Genesis requires a Universe of around
6,000 years. Yet, I have not blinded myself to the Universe's apparent
age. I realize that the evidence for a 4.5-4.6 Gigayear Earth and an
even older Universe is not something that can be easily brushed aside. I
would not be surprised if the jury deliberates on this indefinitely.
(You see I am required to teach YEC to my students. If I came to any
other conclusion, it might mean losing my job. Yes, we creationists have
an agenda that influences our approach to evidence just as much as
evolutionists.)
(6) As for ID theory, I agree with its basic assertion that organisms
show design. I also like the evidence that it accrues in favor of such a
conclusion. I think it's doing good stuff.
But I disagree that this is an explanation for how such things
originated. Saying that something is designed is more of a description
than an explanation. If I asked how did my car get to be a car, it would
not be sufficient to answer that it was designed that way. One would
also have to go into the details of how my car was put together. A
delineation of the directed, physical processes in my car's construction
at a GM or Ford plant is the only real explanation as to how my car came
to be a car.
Since ID theory does not provide any such model for life, I reluctantly
(yes, very reluctantly) conclude that ID is lacking in explanatory
content. Thus, I cannot lump it under the heading of "science" or
"scientific." Saying that something looks designed seems to be about as
far as ID can go right now. But, then, I don't think anyone really
contests the notion that lifeforms appear designed (even Richard Dawkins
would agree to this). Until ID comes up with a delineation of how
physical processes were intelligently directed to form biochemical
systems, it will not be a real testable theory. It will instead be
something of a tautology: things are designed because they look designed,
and things look designed because they are designed.
Of course, if my creationist views are correct, then ID (or anyone for
that matter) should not be able to delineate the processes at work in the
formation of life. God would've theoretically created life fully formed
in an instantaneous way. There would no physical processes to talk about
in life's first generation.
Oh, and BTW, I also do not like how ID'ers seem to be sheepish with the
who or what of the designer. It is particularly galling for me to hear
some claim that design needs no designer.
Besides these things, I love ID even if they should take great issue with
my opinions on their theory. (-:
Steve C.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 16:03:08 EDT