Re: Natural Theology, Unguided Processes and Apologetics

Murphy (
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:41:29 -0400

Don N Page wrote:
> George L. Murphy wrote Sept. 12, "But when ID people conclude that
> something is the result of capitalized Intelligent Design, we're supposed to
> believe that scientifically understandable processes could not have produced it
> and stop our investigation at that point."
> I would like to take a more charitable attitude and hope that ID makes
> actual scientific predictions differing from those of the present scientific
> paradigms. Ideally it should also give some guidelines for better explanations
> of these different phenomena predicted. Hence my Sept. 3 challenge "to present
> a testable difference" between ID and natural law.

Since Intelligent Design is code for God, & since (according to
popular theism) "God can do anything", any sort of prediction is
compatible with this "theory".
It's a bit like the problem low-grade SF writers create by
inventing characters (like Q in Star Trek TNG) who are "all powerful".
This means that there are no constraints on the plot, & the result
usually isn't very interesting.

George L. Murphy