Hi John
The IA candidates you mention are exactly what I meant by what I wrote
in the parenthesis you quote (cf. also my comments to Dembski's points
15 and 18). But I think these IA must themselves have been created by
God (directly or through other IA or processes created and directed by
God), so at the end of the line you can have none other than the
Christian God.
John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> Peter Rust wrote as follows:
>
> "(Dembki wrote) 32. ... Even if a theory of intelligent design should
> ultimately prove
> successful and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the
> designer posited by this theory would have to be the Christian God or
> for that matter be real in some ontological sense. One can be an
> anti-realist about science and simply regard the designer as a
> regulative principle ...
> P.R.: Who else but the Christian God could be the designer of living
> systems (if not of the earthly ones, then of the creative ETIs if they,
> in the extreme case, did the designing)? -... ."
>
> I don't see at all why the Christian God has to be the only candidate
> for a designer of living systems. Candidates for the IA (Intelligent
> Agent) which did the designing
> include the Christian God; other candidates are :
> angels working under his command,
> gods other than the Christian God,
> Highly advanced aliens
> Humanity-of-the-future who have deveoped time travel,
> etc. etc.
>
> My point here is that ID requires an IA, nothing more. The IA
> may be any number of supernatural options, or any number
> of non-supernatural options.
>
> Burgy
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 13:55:53 EST