Re: Answer to Eugenie Scott's views

Keith B Miller (
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:15:39 -0600

Phil wrote:

>The subject of my comments was MN -- the doctrine which states as a
>philosophical a priori that only naturalistic explanations are eligible for
>consideration. Hence a naturalistic explanation for all events is presumed
>to exist REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. No matter how strongly the evidence
>points to the reality of design in biology, and hence the reality of the
>Designer, that possibility must be ignored and the best naturalistic
>alternative (Darwinian selection) credited with creating the appearance of
>design. I do not think that theists should agree to this kind of
>restriction upon thought, and I do think that theists should be willing to
>recognize the existence of intelligent causes when the evidence points in
>that direction.

You and others seem to make the assumption that design implies the absence
of scientific description. I do not believe that this understanding
corresponds at all to what the biblical authors intend. The evidence for
God's presence in creation, for the esistence of a Creator God, is
prescisely those everyday "natural events" experienced by us all. The
trees, the animals, the seas, the storm, the very rocks all proclaimed
God's reality to anyone who desired to see. It is for this reason that
Paul declares that all humanity is without excuse. That is natural
revelation. To reduce it to gaps in our scientific explanation does, I
believe great disservice to the witness of God in creation. As I said in a
recent letter to Perspectives, "If a person cannot see God in a sunset or a
thunderstorm, he or she will not see him in a strand of DNA or a mitotic
spindle." I see design in _all_ of creation, don't you?


Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506