From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:32:38 EDT
>From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> I had no idea that the ID folks were reluctant
> (in general) to admit the formation of elements through natural processes in
> stars.
I would say that most advocates of ID do indeed accept, for good reasons,
the formation of progressively more complex elements through natural
processes in stars. As George correctly points out, the problem arises when
they are asked the question, "Is the C-12 nucleus intelligently designed?"
Why does this innocent-looking question cause a problem? Because in ID-speak
the categories "intelligently designed" and "formed by natural processes"
are related as either/or. Dembski's approach, for instance, is to attempt to
demonstrate "X could not have been formed by natural processes" so that the
only alternative is "X was intelligently designed." Reminder: in ID-speak,
to say that "X was intelligently designed" is to say that "X was actualized
(assembled, formed, constructed, fabricated) in such a way as to require one
or more episodes of non-natural, form-conferring action by an unidentified,
unembodied, choice-making agent."
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:34:24 EDT