From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:58:33 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> 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.
Howard has already responded to this. The question isn't whether C-12 is formed
by natural processes but whether it's "intelligently designed."
> 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?
So is the C-12 nucleus intelligently designed or not?
> 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?
I didn't say they denied this, simply that they are reluctant to answer the
question. & again, the question isn't simply "natural causation" but whether such
natural causation can be the mechanism by which intelligent design is carried out.
> > 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?
Which is to say, help science to see where the STOP sign is.
> 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).
Not necessarily. Einstein certainly accepted methodological naturalism as the
appropriate way to investigate the world. But he also loved music. & when Hedwig Born
asked him if it would be possible, in principle, to give a mathematical representation
of a Beethoven symphony he said, "Yes - but it wouldn't mean anything."
Shalom,
George
> Good talking George,
>
> Richard
> Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
> http://www.BibleWheel.com
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:57:19 EDT