From: Josh Bembenek (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 01:42:25 EDT
Just a quick thought that I'd like some feedback on. Many on this list have
expressed dismay over IDers usage of God's "hand-like" action as a magic
wand to use whenever scientists don't understand a particular phenomena. I
agree that it is fruitful to point out that God never ceases to act in
sustaining Creation and that such rhetorical strategy implies unintelligent
creation when natural mechanisms are found to account for such phenomena.
However, I wonder if this same problem exists for the fully-gifted creation
viewpoint? What makes us think that the origin of space time and the
derivation of matter, energy and all of the universe is simply a gap in our
understanding that some future naturalistic discovery won't elegantly
explain, again making the "God Hypothesis" obsolete? Perhaps I should
remember some discussion of this in some article, but its not coming to me.
I don't care to defend my idea by trying to give any explanation for a
naturalistic origin of space-time. Besides for those here, isn't it
sufficient enough to hypothesize that a naturalistic explanation is out
there awaiting our discovery instead of "jumping the gun" and prematurely
attributing creation to the act of God before all explanations are fully
explored? The Big Bang Hypothesis is younger than evolution isn't it? I'm
not looking for a drawn out debate, just some thoughtful considerations.
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 01:45:20 EDT