From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:08:56 EDT
David makes relevant points, IMO. But there is something further that
seems to be left out. To a theist, God is in constant control, though, to
use Luther's language, we see only the masks of God. If God "nudged" an
event, we cannot differentiate it from one in which the shift is random.
So, within scientific methodology, the latter is affirmed and the former
cannot even be considered. If in Christ all things hang together
(Colossians 1:17), then his purpose is universally achieved. This, I
think, fits with "The heavens declare ..." and "The fool hath said ..."
Dave
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:43:08 -0400 "bivalve"
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
> I'm not entirely sure that the points of view being advocated
> or criticized have necessarily been fully defined. I see at
> least four options relating to "natural" versus ID
> explanations (with plenty of intergrades):
>
> 1. Everything must have a "natural" explanation.
>
> 2. "Natural" explanations seem to work pretty well and
> provide an adequate proximal explanation of the creation of
> organisms.
>
> 3. "Natural" explanations do not seem adequate.
>
> 4. There must be physical evidence pointing to
> non-"natural" events. God is more involved in them than in
> natural events.
>
> The first and last are philosophical positions and are major
> targets of criticism from the other side. Also, people
> holding the second or third views may be accused of the
> first or fourth. This is incorrect. For example, I think that it
> is theologically likely that the physical acts of creation of
> organisms used ordinary means throughout, and I do not
> see any physical evidence as disproving that. The popular
> ID use of bad counterexamples, such as the mitochondrial
> genetic code argument, makes me further dubious about
> the merits of purporedly irreducible events. However,
> endorsement by Dawkins is likewise detrimental to
> credibility for me.
>
> Both 1 and 4 assert that God must have done things a
> particular way (if He is involved), whereas 2 and 3 suggest
> that He did things a particular way.
>
> Of course, based on a general level of success or failure of
> a particular approach, one might reasonably put more
> initial credence to an explanation that fits that approach. It
> is the a priori ruling out of a possibility that is inherently
> philosophical rather than observational (not that we are
> perfectly obsevational in other cases, just more so).
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand
> Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G.
> Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:11:59 EDT