From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 10:59:14 EDT
Hi George, you wrote:
> 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.
This caught me by surprise. I had no idea that the ID folks were reluctant
(in general) to admit the formation of elements through natural processes in
stars. Could you point me to documentation of this fact? I was under the
impression that the formation of elements in stars was accepted by pretty
much everyone.
The only thing I have seen in this regard goes back to the fine-tuning
argument, which asserts that God chose the correct laws and constants so
that life supporting chemistry could happen. I have never heard them assert
the C-12 nucleus subsequently had to be designed *apart* from the selection
of initial conditions, laws, and constants of nature, which seems to be what
you say the IDers assert. And as I ponder this, I realize I don't even
understand the question "Is the C-12 nucleus intelligently designed?" in any
other sense, since then we would be considering a universe where God had to
supernaturally create every c-12 nucleus. Is anyone actually asserting this?
This also makes me wonder how these IDers would answer the rather obvious
point that scientists *already have* created heavy elements through natural
processes. Wouldn't this be equivalent to the creation of life in the lab
through natural processes, if C-12 were "intelligently designed" in the same
way as life? It seems like this point should have been settle for the IDers
a long time ago. It looks foolish to deny the formation of elements through
natural causation, IMHO. Am I missing something?
> 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.
>
I agree, this is a crucial point, but I'm not sure that the "Yes" would
necessarily be a STOP sign to science. On the contrary, could it not *help*
science in its task of defining the limits of its domain? Isn't the
alternative equivalent to assuming the a priori validity of scientific
naturalism? I still think Denyse's point is valid - as long as scientific
naturalism rules the minds of scientists, they will be necessarily blind
(i.e. unable to see) anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions, even if
it is staring them in the face (as seems, e.g., to be the case with the
sevenfold symmetry of the Bible).
Good talking George,
Richard
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 10:56:04 EDT