From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 08:32:32 EDT
Perhaps someone can answer a simple question. Intelligence in humans,
based on consciousness and rationality, is not part of the physical
universe and cannot be derived from scientific theories. Therefore, if
such is needed in order to do unadulterated science, then whence does
that intelligence come from? Isn't this the reason for supposing the
existence of a being which is infinitely, compared to humans, more
conscious and rational? Isn't that what ID is all about?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:12 AM
To: Michael Roberts; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)
>From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> If the Ice Age was the result of the Flood then Glaciers and Moraines
can be
> seen to be intelligently designed
Michael,
Well, not exactly. Here's the problem. The pattern set by ID advocates
seems
to be that inanimate objects like stars and planets (which, I presume,
include glaciers and moraines) are labeled "intelligently designed" when
they are formed as a consequence of a robust (& fine-tuned) system of
natural formational capabilities. Biotic things, on the other hand, are
labeled "intelligently designed" when the system of natural capabilities
is
inadequate to do the job and needs to be supplemented by occasional
episodes
of non-natural form-imposing intervention by an unidentified,
unembodied,
choice-making agent who need not be God.
So, sorry, but your glaciers and moraines can't be intelligently
designed :)
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 08:32:50 EDT