RE: What does ID mean?

Berger, Dan (
Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:11:06 -0400

On Tuesday, April 21, 1998 10:14 AM, Bill Hamilton
[] wrote:
<snip> So far as I know, no natural law was violated. Nevertheless, I would
> call this a miracle.
> Of course I'm not ruling out God setting aside natural laws -- or utilizing
> capabilities in nature that are unknown to us. But "miracle" does not have
> to imply the violation of a law of nature.

All very true, Bill. But how does this help the ID case? Miracles which do
not violate "laws" of nature are forever undetectable to those who refuse to
see God's action. As I've stated before, there will always be some possible --
even plausible -- explanation which excludes God. In the story you told (about
cattle and the Dallas Theological Seminary), "coincidence" would be the obvious
skeptical response, especially given that not all prayers are answered in the
affirmative. To us, that's just evidence that God is not tame, and sometimes
says "no."

I don't think ID has a future in science because, as the Lord said, "If they
will not believe Moses and the prophets, they would not believe even if someone
were to return from the dead." There's *always* a naturalistic explanation,
and its plausibility will definitely be in the beholder's eye. "If miracles
are excluded as intrinsically improbable, no evidence for a miracle will be
accepted." (C.S. Lewis, _Miracles_, Chapter 1)

Daniel J. Berger | PH: (419) 358-3379
Associate Professor of Chemistry | FAX:(419) 358-3323
Bluffton College |
Bluffton OH 45817-1196 |