Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

From: Cornelius Hunter <>
Date: Fri Oct 14 2005 - 16:48:54 EDT


Actually, IDs do not "say that some phenomena are due to direct divine
action." What they say is that one way or another we can infer design. The
design we infer may have gotten there by secondary causes. There are IDs who
would prefer primary causation, in some instances, to secondary, but they
must justify that beyond merely the design inference.

Second, IDs do not seek to analyze primary causation and make that part of a
scientific theory (none that I know of anyway). Perhaps you could provide
some specific examples if you think I'm misrepresenting ID.


> I think this is correct, & there's another nuance. It's certainly been
> part of traditional doctrines of providence to say that on rare occasions
> God acts directly rather than through second causes. I don't think
> there's any compelling reason to say that such miraculous acts are needed
> in the evolutionary process but let's grant for the sake of argument that
> they are - e.g., for the origin of life. But then you just have to say
> "It's a miracle" and not pretend that you can investigate it
> scientifically, because we can't subject God to experimental testing. The
> IDers want to have it both way - to say that some phenomena are due to
> direct divine action AND to make that part of a scientific theory. As far
> as incorporation into science is concerned, a miracle in that sense can at
> most be a boundary condition (temporal &/or spatial) which can't otherwise
> be explained.
> Shalom
> George
Received on Fri Oct 14 16:54:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 16:54:29 EDT