RE: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)

From: SHEILA WILSON (sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 09:30:30 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)"

    This is a great question but it is a two-edged sword that clearly reveals the more challenging side. If intelligence, consciousness, and rationality in humans cannot be measured or derived from scientific theories, how do we know that animals and plants do not also have these traits? If they have these traits, then are they sentient or self-aware? If self-aware, then why do we consider ourselves better than them?
     
    Remember, I am Christian. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. I know that mankind was created different than animals. I am not a humanist. This train of thought, however, is a slipperly slope that has led many to destruction. More questions:
     
    Do animals have a moral system dictating right from wrong? Are animals intelligent and self-aware? Many say yes to both of these. How then are we different? Do we have a soul and animals do not? What is a soul? How does God define our souls? How are we different?
     
    Howard says that glaciers and moraines are not intelligently made. Why not? God is the author and finisher of our faith. God is the Creator of all things - why not glaciers and moraines? Are only living things intelligently made? What about our planet or our universe? God is the God of the infinite and the finite, the great and the small. If He knows how many hairs are on my head and I was wonderfully and fearfully made, why not moraines? Even the rocks will cry out the glory of God!
     
    Sheila
     

    "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
    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"

    > 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

    Sheila McGinty Wilson
    sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 09:30:52 EDT