Don wrote:
Dick Fischer wrote:
"Opening the door to interventionism, which is the "heart"
of ID, is more like the "heart attack" of science....
"Does God's intervention stop at life processes, or does it persist
in all physical processes?"
Your criticisms might apply if God's interventions were totally
arbitrary, but not if they were purposeful. I favor
interventionism, partly because that's what the Bible witnesses of with
respect to human history.
Intervening to inhibit Alzheimers disease, or Tay Sachs, or Sickle Cell
Anemia, or Huntingtons disease, or Downs Syndrome, or Cerebral Palsy, or
Muscular Dystrophy, or HIV wouldn't be "purposeful"
enough? Would that be your argument? Or would you argue that
it was retribution for sin? In which case you would have to explain
why disease effects every advanced organism, even ones that don't sin
against God.
But the interventions wouldn't be
arbitrary in any case. God has intervened in a special way when
there's been a need for it.
And your non-biblical examples are ...?
It's easy for me to believe there
have been needs for it now and then ever since the Big Bang, as I don't
believe the universe is quite robust enough to have made us on its
own.
The Big Bang is an excellent example of God causing an event which would
not have happened without Him. But you cheapen His true miracle
when you follow that up by saying it wasn't good enough on its own.
The creation of the universe and the creation of living replicators are
God's miracles that are hard to refute. And the Bible says God
created (
bara in the Hebrew) these things. Now you want to
add some unsubstantiated miracles. That weakens your
position.
People who insist that God has
never intervened in a special way honor philosophical elegance more than
truth.
"Truth" is elusive. Let's just say,
"facts." And a fact is something we can support with data
and evidence. Genetic drift is a fact. Natural selection is a
fact. Environmental impact is a pet hypothesis of mine that has a
little something going for it. And sporadic divine intervention in
life processes has remained undetected.
And this is where biblical examples differ dramatically. All the
biblical miracles were performed out in the open to reveal God's hand and
to authenticate the credentials of someone special - Christ being the
most notable example.
If you wish to argue for clandestine miracles, you are on your own.
The Bible won't help you, and there is no evidence from nature.
Now that you raise the issue,
scientific data do not establish that God is not intervening arbitrarily
in our world as we speak.
We have solid evidence that evolution at the cellular level is non
directed. Babies are born every day with defects so severe they
cannot survive. Some survive, but never live productive
lives. Explain to those parents why their children weren't
important enough that God bothers to assure their well being in the
womb.
In any large set of measurements
there are always wild points. One could argue that some of the wild
points are valid data. I.e., the observer just happened to measure
when God was intervening.
And a specific example of that would be ...?
So for any isolated measurement you
still have to append that "God permitting." Scientific
theories explain only averages.
Where did you hear that myth?
That said, I suspect that, unless
intelligent humans are involved in the interventions and are led by God's
Spirit to see them as interventions, we are never going to be able to
distinguish a special intervention from an improbable natural
occurrence. So IMO ID has a chance of ultimate success that's
nonzero but just barely. Even if ID "succeeds," many
still will not believe.
I believe that Christianity is an evidencery religion. We can
substantiate our beliefs with historical and archaeological evidence, and
the personal testimony of faithful believers who are living
witnesses. When we try to advance a belief that is totally
unsubstantiated, as ID is, we denigrate our religion to the same level as
any other belief that has nothing of substance, like Islam or Hinduism,
for example.
Further, when we express unsubstantiated beliefs, it undercuts all the
science we do which is required to adhere to strict rules. What you
are saying is that rules don't matter. We just bend them if it
suits our purpose such as advancing our religion.
Is the search for ID wasted
effort?
It is counter productive, effort expended in a wrong direction.
Better that we testify as to what we know and can substantiate.
Don't speculate, don't invent, and live within the rules of data and
evidence - the stuff of science. That's effort that could bear
fruit.
Dick Fischer -
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Sun Mar 14 13:08:21 2004