Heya,
Some comments follow.
> We have hashed and rehashed ID for lo these many years now and the majority
> of us here seem to agree that ID isn't science, even those who advocate for
> it wish it to be, and ID has downsides to it. What explains genetic
> errors when the intelligent designer is doing the genetic coding? Trying
> to advance a god-like being who pushes the throttle and sleeps at the switch
> serves no useful purpose in my humble estimation.
>
I think there are some misunderstandings here right away. 'When the
intelligent designer is doing the genetic coding'? I don't think even the
most over-the-top ID proponents argues as much, if I'm reading you right.
And I've always regarded the 'if God designed nature, we'd expect vastly
better work' line to be fatally flawed as a criticism, whether against ID in
particular or the idea of divine creation in general.
> God seems to have no interest in proving his existence so why should we? When
> Jesus was asked why he spoke in parables, the answer was to both reveal and
> conceal. That appears to suit God's purpose. He reveals himself to all
> who accept him and conceals himself from his enemies. God's plan of
> revealing and concealing seems to be at odds with our trying to prove God to
> all, so why not do it God's way? So let's just jettison ID as a
> non-productive idea. All together, heave ho!
>
No interest in proving His existence, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't many reasons to believe in God's existence - and that such
indications even extend to the natural world and sciences. I would agree
that there's no way to scientifically prove or disprove design where God is
concerned, but science is woefully inadequate for exploring various truths
and evidences. This would be one of them.
> Now let us build a better mousetrap. Here is a proposed replacement for
> Intelligent Design: God's Provisions.
>
Alright, but there's some contradiction here right away - the very fact that
you feel the need to replace design indicates ID was on to something. May as
well give the devil its due here.
> First, GP doesn't pretend to be science. So it isn't a theory, it is a
> philosophical view that could be taught in courses on religion wherever
> religious education is taught irrespective of any particular religion. GP
> also names the father-spirit as "God," it doesn't hide behind some weasley
> pretense that we don't know who he is.
>
I like the sound of this already. I believe Alister McGrath wrote a book
along these lines recently, where he argued for the revival of natural
theology.
> GP is simply an enumeration of the advantages we are given or some of the
> nice beneficial things which wouldn't be easily explained simply by natural
> selection. Even if some of the examples could be explained by the
> impersonal acts of blind nature, the sheer likelihood that all could be
> explained thus would be unlikely. If a butterfly lands on your nose,
> that's an unlikely but probably a natural occurrence. But if 100
> butterflies zoom in on your schnoze from all directions and dance the Mashed
> Potatoes simultaneously, that's Providence.
>
This I'm less thrilled about. I don't believe that natural selection should
be made distinct from God's involvement and planning, nor do I think it's
necessary or even scientifically desirable to admit to 'blind nature' in
this sense. Nature is better regarded as a creation itself, a collection of
mechanisms, processes, and even tools brought about intentionally. These
things should be recognized as the handiwork of God, even if through
secondary causes, rather than placed in the 'nature did this, not God'
category. Isn't that a principle complaint of ID?
> So what would could we list as examples of God's Provisions? (Here's
> where you all could contribute and we could establish a list.)
>
You should check out Reason to Believe's website, as they seem to do this
sort of thing often. You may even find a number of examples you could
incorporate.
> And so on. I'm sure we, and others, could develop a list of examples
> better than these. Then at the end of the list we could ask the
> philosophical question: Are these better explained by the impersonal acts of
> nature or by a loving God?
>
I'm hesitant about limiting the discussion to 'a loving God'. Love is
central to God, certainly in Christianity, but it's far from His only
aspect. In fact, though I referenced RtB here, I notice they recently make a
move that would fit in odd on your list: Fazale Rana talking about how
kidney stones and the mechanisms behind them are indicative of a creator's
intelligence and foresight. But I think the perspective offered there
remains valuable.
But I would be joyed at the development of a philosophical and intellectual
position that approaches nature and the universe as a thing of design. From
photosynthesis to evolutionary processes to otherwise.
> Anyway, this is an idea, not necessarily original. Remember, GP doesn't
> mascarade as science, so if someone says it isn't science, that's right, it
> isn't. What do you think? Better that ID or not?
>
Not better than ID. In fact, not necessarily distinct from ID, since
viewpoints that are philosophical and not necessarily scientific aren't
excluded from ID, as far as I can tell. It may be superior to other
particular ID focuses, however.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 20:38:32 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 12 2008 - 20:38:32 EST