From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:51:23 EDT
I had written:
>> 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.
George responded:
> Howard has already responded to this. The question isn't whether C-12 is
formed by natural processes but whether it's "intelligently designed."
This confuses me. Howard also said:
>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.
So Howard asserts that the questions of "whether C-12 is formed by natural
processes" and "whether it's intelligently designed" are logically
equivalent (as opposite formations of a single question). I agree with
Howard. This also seems to be what you asserted in you original point in
post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0464.html
>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.
Here you are discussing the question in terms of ID *versus* "necessary
processes," which seems to be the equivalent of "natural processes" which
you took as distinct from ID. I'm at a loss to follow this. What point are
you trying to make with this distinction, George?
George also asked:
>So is the C-12 nucleus intelligently designed or not?
If we use the highly specific definition of ID as a "form conferring act",
then I would assert the answer is clearly NO, and I would expect the entire
ID community to concur (not that I know them, but simply because of the
logic of the argument). Again, I see no reason why the IDers couldn't assert
that C-12 was formed through natural processes established when God
fine-tuned the universe.
NOTE: I just got Howard's response where he concurs that this is "the ID
strategy for inanimate things like C-12."
It would be very helpful to me if someone could point me to any
documentation where the IDers actually make claims concerning the ID of
C-12.
George also wrote:
> I didn't say they denied this [formation of elements through natural
causation], 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.
Now I am more confused. This seems to be a contradiction in terms. According
to Howard, ID is in an either/or relation to natural causation. If that is
true, then it is logically impossible to have NC as the mechanism of ID.
I had written:
> 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?
To which George replied:
> Which is to say, help science to see where the STOP sign is.
Correct. If you are not asserting that scientific naturalism is
all-encompassing, then science definitely does need STOP signs. But we then
have questions like "where are they?" and "what are their nature?" These
seem to be important questions.
Finally, concerning Einstein's lack of appreciation of the hypothetical
mathematical representation of a Beethoven symphony : Have you read his
"Ideas and Opinions?" It is a very enlightening book. It shows that
brilliance in one field does not automatically confer competence in all
others. There is much in Einstein that I admire, and much I disagree with.
His take on the meaning of the mathematical structure of Beethoven is one
such example. Besides, I doubt he gave the comment much thought, it
certainly doesn't sound like it anyway.
B'Shem El Elyon,
Richard Amiel McGough
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 - 12:48:12 EDT