Re: Smorgasbord of explanations

From: James W Stark (
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 16:46:17 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: If having the faith of a child is a pop quiz... final"

    Bob DeHaan wrote:

    > "The objection to all such mechanism is that they comprise
    > what Walter Remine calls a smorgasbord of explanations, from which one
    > selects the one that seems most plausible."

    "Burgy" responded:
    > To those who inhabit this list and claim the TE position, I stand in
    > awe (at least sometimes) of your intellect and power of argumentation.
    > What I say here is simply this -- you, and others, have failed
    > to convince me that the TE position is "true." That it is useful -- that
    > it can be defended from scripture -- that it is held by honorable
    > scholars much more learned than I -- I do not dispute. But I cannot
    > claim the position for myself.

    Is there really just one most plausible theory of evolution? A TE is not
    the best because a group of scientists find a Darwinian theory plausible to
    them. Plausibility depends on its ability to explain reality. It involves
    interpretations that will be based on the personal worldviews of the

    I submit that there is no known one worldview that will be the best for
    everyone. We are free to build our own personal worldviews that will
    act as standards of reference for making our own decisions. Plausibility
    will never establish consensus. We are all capable of building plausibility
    into any story. All plausible theories or stories need to be tested. Burgy's
    doubt is a healthy sign of seeking for a better personal worldview.

    The current worldviews all seem to cluster around two opposing views, at
    least in the West.
    1. Emergent: "Accidents and chance lead to the emergence of intelligence".
        They may be Darwinian or just selectively so. They support
         metaphysical naturalism for interpretations. They are monistic
          and deny any supernatural realm.
    2. Designed: "Intelligent design has created many systems that allow
             accidents and measures of chance".
             Evidence of Intelligent design has been historically avoided by
              science. We are fully capable of creating plausible theories
             or stories for this dualistic worldview that accepts the
              supernatural realm as part of reality.

    There can be be elements of evolution in both perspectives. We may even
    be able to see Darwinism within a design perspective. Plausibility only
    requires frequent "confirmation", which can not establish a story as a
    true scientific fact. We seem to need both of these opposing schools of
    thought. Since God intended that we freely choose to believe in God, the
    evidence for God's existence and presence must be kept subtle enough to
    even hide the reality of freewill. God's design included that gift of
    freedom. Building evidence of ID will not be easy. We can only share
    our worldviews and avoid argumentation. Did not Jesus stress the
    avoidance of force and personal contact to God for help? The emergent
    view will deny any need for outside moral guidance.
    It is a bootstrap approach.

    Finally, choosing emergent or designed is split among scientists.
    Cosmologists support design because of their allegiance to the Big Bang.
    Do Darwinists support the Big Bang because of the presumed single
    origin for the Universe? Hmmm?

    Jim Stark

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 16:46:43 EDT