From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 21:17:05 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> Hi George.
>
> In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0503.html you cited an
> article in Perspectives, March 2001, "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's
> Functional Integrity." Is this available online?
>
> Also, I would be interested in your take on my formulation of the argument
> in post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0514.html Here's the gist
> of it:
>
> >1) Observations reveal fine-tuning of the universe (Tegmark even takes
> >this for granted).
> >2) Observations of biogenesis have never occurred.
>
> >ID Theory conforms to both observations #1 and #2.
> >RFEP Theory conforms only to #1 and asserts quite
> >optimistically that observations will "someday" support biogenesis.
>
> >ID is therefore more in accord with current scientific observations.
>
> Do you think this is a good argument? If not, why not?
My article to which I referred is available online. Go to the ASA website &
find the listing of Perspective articles by author.
Not a lot of time right now since I'm getting ready to leave for the ASA
meeting. But briefly, no, I don't think it's a good argument. The ID argument appeals
to unmediated divine action to do things that are beyond the capacity of created
agencies. By one classical definition that means "miracle," though we need not use that
term. Anyway, such an appeal can explain _any_ unexplained phenomenon. But it isn't
science.
I won't argue for use of the pejorative phrase "God of the gaps" but I'm hardly
convinced by Dembski's claim that ID isn't an appeal to GoG because "the gap is not
methodological but ontological." I see no basis for that claim.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 21:15:59 EDT