On Tue, 01 May 2001 17:17:54 -0500 Preston Garrison
<garrisonp@uthscsa.edu> writes:
>
> It seems to me that part of the reason for the disagreements on this
> issue is the inherent difficulty of determining when natural law
> explanations have failed. Johnson and Dembski think that they have
> "proved" (or some similarly strong statement) that natural
> explanations have failed. But the people who have spent their
> careers actually studying biological systems nearly all think that
> they have not failed.
>
> Preston G.
>
Preston,
I fear you don't understand. Unless you have a total explanation for a
phenomenon (chosen by the ID group since it is their option), it is
unexplained and unexplainable. So, to take an example, you and your
colleagues have not given a total explanation for the construction of the
parts for the flagellar motor, their assembly, and the way that ATP
produces the flagellar beat and its reversal. All you have is some
information about some aspects of its development and control. Therefore
you can never explain it. It was necessarily produced immediately by the
hand of God (both shaping and conception, for Howard's distinction
obviously does not hold, for he does not agree with this form of ID). QED
What I find unexplained and to date inexplicable is how the universe
developed from ylem to its present state without continuous miraculous
intervention for its fine tuning. Can it be that the universe is
atheistic and life theistic? There is the theory floating around that the
universe is the product of random quantum fluctuation, possible because
gravitational energy is negative and balances electromagnetic energy for
a net of zero. Its not needing input may explain its atheistic source and
nature.
Hope this clarifies matters.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:27:37 EDT