From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 06:35:31 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> Hi Glen, you wrote:
>
> >I would disagree. The fact that the nuclear force is such to allow stable
> >elements and the electrical force is of the strength it is, so that stable
> >chemistry can occur HAS to be part of any design. Afterall, if chemistry
> >doesn't work, then neither do spiders.
>
> I think this is a valid but separate issue that would fall under the rubric
> of fine-tuning.
>
> Fine-tuning is different from the ID of Life. E.g. - it is conceivable that
> an ID person could admit that the laws necessary for life supporting
> chemistry could arise through a lucky roll of the multi-verse dice while
> denying that 14 billion years was sufficient time for the evolution of life
> in any given universe. Of course, in practice I would expect a typical ID
> person to support both ID of the Laws of Nature and the ID of Life. But its
> also conceivable that a person could support the ID of the Laws as the
> necessary precurser to darwinian evolution. The arguments appear to be
> independent.
>
> You also said:
>
> >And if the 'design' of the elements is due to evolution, then why must we
> >consider the spider as being due to anything else? Still seems inconsistent
> >to me.
>
> Again, it seems like we are talking about two completely different kinds of
> evolution. In fact, it seems we are using the word "evolution" in a
> completely different sense in the two cases.
>
> Also, we know that the structure of the heavy elements can result from
> fusion - we have equations that tell us so. We don't have anything like that
> kind of knowledge when it comes to biogenesis and the subsequent evolution
> of species.
IDers have always been reluctant to answer the question "Is the C-12 nucleus
intelligently designed?" & I think the answer isn't far to seek. They don't want to say
"No" because that would mean that some things - & here something crucial for the
development of life - "just happened" outside of God's intention. But if they say "Yes"
then we have an example of something intelligently designed & needed for life that can
be explained in terms of necessary processes, & thus secondary causation. & that
invites us to try to explain other phenomena, such as the development of biological
information, in scientific terms.
The crucial question here - as I noted also in my recent post to Josh et al - is
whether or nor IDers insist that things like the origin of CSI had to be done by God
immediately - i.e., not through natural and scientifically explainable processes. If
not then we grant their point that some phenomena haven't been fully explained by
science & go ahead & try to find such explanations. If "Yes" then ID is a STOP sign for
science - unless we want to investigate God by the methods of the natural sciences.
& it should be noted again that scripture & Christian theology gives no reason
to say that the origin of life was miraculous - i.e., unmediated.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 06:34:38 EDT