From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 11:39:29 EDT
Nicely put! Doesn't seem illogical at all.
Jim Armstrong
Debbie Mann wrote:
>I was reading a Scientific American article about feathers on dinosaurs and
>how they really weren't needed. I read something on the e-mail on parallel
>processing (I'm in heavy duty work mode, now, so I'm mostly scanning
>things.) But, in spite of the fact that I was reading evidence to the
>contrary and I had no time, I was still struck with a moment of awe. It's
>something along the line of when one sees a new baby. These things didn't
>exist before and now they do. These feathers with all their intricacies,
>their hard parts and their soft parts and their branches and swirls, soft on
>the belly and tough on the back - didn't exist before and then they did. It
>is awesome, and therefore, my self - whether it is soul or spirit or
>intellect I cannot say - but my heart says that it is divine.
>
>How's that for illogic for ya?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of George Murphy
>Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 8:15 AM
>To: Howard J. Van Till
>Cc: Jim Armstrong; Joel Peter Anderson; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Evolutionary rate
>
>
>Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
>
>>>From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you say "non-miraculous." ID requires the
>>>
>>>
>Intelligent
>
>
>>>Designer to do things which cannot be accomplished through God's
>>>
>>>
>ordinary
>
>
>>>providential
>>>action through natural processes. (Or, which would occur with
>>>
>>>
>negligible
>
>
>>>probability.)
>>>Such things should certainly be considered "miraculous" (though they are
>>>not the only
>>>things that might be described in this way).
>>> One of the problems with ID is its insistence that the creation of life
>>>
>>>
>must
>
>
>>>have been, in this sense, a miracle - a claim for which there is no
>>>theological warrant.
>>>In fact, it contrasts with the idea of mediated creation in Genesis 1.
>>>
>>>
>>Well said, George. I heartily agree.
>>
>>I include the category "non-miraculous" in the list, not because I believe
>>it, but because Dembski claims it. The following is taken from my response
>>to Dembski in our exchange on the AAAS web-site:
>>
>>****************************************************************
>>
>>3. Does Dembskišs ID hypothesis posit miracles?
>>
>>I had argued that the acts of intelligent design posited by Dembski seem
>>indistinguishable from miracles. Dembski vigorously objects to the
>>suggestion that ID entails miracles. His objection is based on the fine
>>distinction between events that are naturally impossible and those that
>>
>>
>are
>
>
>>merely exceptionally improbable. Dembski asserts that "miracles or
>>supernatural interventions in the classical sense" belong in the category
>>"counterfactual substitutions" -- occasions in which some naturally
>>
>>
>possible
>
>
>>outcome is, by divine action, replaced by a naturally impossible one.
>>Dembski argues that the designeršs form-conferring action that results in
>>the formation of biotic structures like the bacterial flagellum is not, in
>>the strict sense, a naturally impossible outcome, only an extraordinarily
>>improbable one.
>>
>>I offer two comments in response: (1) I do not for a moment believe that
>>theologians are agreed that all divine acts traditionally taken to
>>constitute "miracles or supernatural interventions" can be placed in
>>Dembskišs narrowly defined category of "counterfactual substitutions." (2)
>>The thrust of Dembskišs appeal to the bacterial flagellum is to argue that
>>it could not possibly have been formed by natural processes alone. He
>>
>>
>argues
>
>
>>explicitly that the probability that the flagellum formed as the outcome
>>
>>
>of
>
>
>>natural processes is so astoundingly low that the ID hypothesis (that the
>>flagellum was formed in a way that required the form-conferring action of
>>
>>
>an
>
>
>>unidentified and unembodied choice-making agent) is the only viable
>>explanation. Consequently, for Dembski to hang his rejection of the label
>>"miracle or supernatural intervention" for this action on the delicate
>>distinction between "naturally impossible" and "possible but so
>>
>>
>astoundingly
>
>
>>improbable as to conclusively preclude natural formation" strikes me as
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>rhetorical equivalent of attempting to hang a 300-pound painting on the
>>
>>
>wall
>
>
>>with a tailoršs pin.
>>
>>
>
>Howard (& Ted) -
> Thanks. I guess I need to replace the battery on my irony meter.
> Further comment 1: Dembski's claim is OK _if_ one restricts the definition
>of
>"miracle" to events which are completely beyond the capacity of created
>agents, even
>with divine cooperation. But that is far too restrictive. & as you note,
>it's kind of
>perverse to say on the one hand that the origin of biological information
>through
>natural processes is "possible" even though it would take (according to ID
>claims)
>10^(big number) years for there to be any reasonable probability of it
>happening, & then
>to say that it's "impossible" without the intervention of the Intelligent
>Designer
>_because_ it would 10^(big number) years for there to be any reasonable
>probability of
>it happening!
> Further comment 2: The baneful effects of the notion that the origin of
>life
>must be miraculous (however terms are fudged) can be illustrated by the
>interview with
>Francis Crick reported on in the recenbt ASA newsletter. He says that one
>of the
>reasons he went into science was to help to discredit claims used to support
>religion,
>including the belief that "the difference between living and non-living
>things" was
>"inexplicable." Of course one doesn't expect profound theology from Crick,
>but
>Christians who promote such notions continue - as I've said before - to
>insist on
>hanging a large "Kick Me" sign on the back of Christianity.
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 09 2003 - 11:39:48 EDT