Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)

Date: Tue Apr 10 2001 - 13:33:53 EDT

  • Next message: Graham Richard Pointer: "Re: Another "Daily Telegraph" letter."

    Terry wrote:
    << Hi everyone,
     Just feeling a need to throw in another perspective.
     My "resistance" to ID in general is that in my thinking (from a "hard-core"
     Calvinist perspective), all design is "proximate", because all things are
     governed by God. God not only sets creational potentialities (a la
     HVT--"distal design", I guess), but he directs each and every creational
     action along the way of exploring that space. He does this in a regular way
     and this regularity and lawfulness and faithfulness in his governance is
     the basis for regularity and lawfulness in creation. (Don't read any
     exclusion of miracles here!)
     So, I'll say it again. Just because we can give a scientific/creaturely
     explanation for a given phenomenon does not mean that God is not doing
     anything. God is actively controlling "whatsoever comes to pass". (I know
     that all the Calvinist critics are shuddering at this, but, that's a
     longstanding theological debate.) Personally, I think that this perspective
     is what made it so "easy" for the late 19th century/early 20th century old
     Princetonians to accept evolution.
     An implication of this is that from God's perspective, there is no
     randomness, there is no self-organization, there is no quantum
     unpredictability. These descriptions are perfectly legitimate, however,
     from a creaturely/human perspective. So when I say that systems
     self-organize based on "intrinsic" properties, I'm speaking entirely from a
     creaturely/human perspective. From God's perspective there are no
     "intrinsic" properties nor is there any autonomous "self".
     In many ways this is a purely theological assertion. This is why in the end
     my science looks nearly identical to the non-theist's science and why my
     criticisms of ID sound nearly identical to non-theists' criticisms. Phil
     Johnson has called my position "vacuous" and despises it because it makes
     no "threat" to the non-theist scientific community. As I've said many times
     before, the critique that we ought to be making of the atheistic scientific
     community is at the philosophical/theological level and not at the
     practical science level. On the fundamental philosophical/theological
     issues I agree whole-heartedly with Phil Johnson and eagerly desire to join
     ranks with him, but he does not welcome me, but rather actively opposes me
     (calls my views "vacuous", claims that I'm duped by the secular scientific
     establishment, accuses me of fearfully trembling before the secularly
     controlled granting agencies and scientific journal editors, etc.).
     For the record,>>

    I do not usually comment on this issue; but, just for the record, I think
    this is an excellent statement.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 10 2001 - 13:34:18 EDT