Jonathan Clarke wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> Apologies for a slow response.
>
> Hoping not to rehash old ground....
>
> Bill Payne wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 May 2001 08:42:48 +1000 Jonathan Clarke
> > <jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
> >
> > > A recent example (April 9) was Paul Nelson's refusal to publicly answer
> > Loren
> > > Haarsma's question "Are carbon atoms intelligently designed?"
> >
> > I can't imagine why Paul would be reluctant to answer that one. In my
> > mind carbon atoms are absolutely designed, along with every other
> > particle and force in the universe. Why did Loren even ask that question
> > in the first place, and what's wrong with design?
>
> I would like to know why he didn't answer it too. I agree with you,
> everything in the universe is intelligently designed. I can't speak for
> Loren, but the reason I would ask that question (and have in somewhat
> different forms to other people) is that my suspicion is that the ID
> community, as it presently consists, insists that living things are a
> different case from non-living. However, it is difficult to get a straight
> answer (in fact I never have) on this from them.
If they say, "No, C-12 atoms aren't intelligently designed" then they are
saying that God (the Intelligent Designer) didn't plan for C-12 atoms but they
just happened. This would be to surrender the doctrine of creation. If they
answer "Yes, they are intelligently designed" then they have intelligently
designed systems whose assembly can be explained (triple alpha process) in terms
of known physical entities & interactions without any reference to the
Intelligent Designer.
Such a scientific explanation has to take for granted the relative
strengths of the strong & EM interactions which in fact have to be "tuned" rather
precisely to allow C-12 to form but not immediately burn through to O-16. That
is one of the anthropic "coincidences" which can be used to argue for overall
cosmic design. But that's not the level of design IDers want.
In other words, it seems as if IDers answer either way, the game is up.
& of course that means (unless one wants to invoke a non-Aristotelian logic) that
the game is up whether they answer or not.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 21:25:03 EDT