RE: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 00:10:25 EDT

Again, ID here is summarized as only the biological components that can be
supposedly reduced. But as a physicist George, what about the arguments of
design in the universe from Martin Rees, Hoyle and Daives?

Don't the scriptures give us reason to consider that these aspects of design
are valid?

 

Although they as well require them to be mixed with faith for us to
appreciate their lesson. Otherwise, we could say they are insufficient and
"scientifically vacuous" as we could always appeal to multiple universes and
us just getting lucky if we wanted to be strictly scientific about it.

 

This is the danger in assuming that God shares the same commitment to
scientism that we do.

 

John

 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:41 PM
To: John Walley; PvM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

 

There is not the slightest scriptural reason to think that the bacterial
flagellum or blood clotting cascade are part of "God's chosen methodology of
revealing himself to humanity." More generally, there is no scriptural
reason to think that God either creates or sustains life miraculously -
i.e., other than through natural processes. & more generally still, the
whole notion that God's "chosen methodology of revealing himself to
humanity" is through scientific study of the world. That methodology is his
actions (both natural & miraculous - please note that I do not deny the
latter) in the history of Israel which point to & culminate in Jesus Christ.

Theologia naturalis delenda est!

George

 

> > > >Of course, that ID is merely the set theoretic complement of
regularity > >and chance shows that 'design' is not an explanation but
rather a > >position of ignorance based on the fact that science cannot
(yet) > >explain a particular feature. > > > This sounds like the modern day
equivalent of the Pharisees rationalizing > and dismissing the miracles of
Jesus. God is the author of our natural laws > and He chose exceptions to
these laws that he worked at His will to be a > testimony to Him. > > And in
fact for this correlation to be logical, God obviously intended a > common
sense interpretation from the masses of His exceptions to the > standard
laws to show His divine handiwork based on their improbability, not > an
appeal to ignorance (this goes both ways) and a faith that science will >
one day explain it. > > Thus Pim, your rabid ID bashing goes against God's
chosen methodology of > revealing himself to humanity. > > John > > >
-----Original Message----- > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On > Behalf Of PvM > Sent: Saturday,
October 20, 2007 7:09 PM > To: (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan > Cc: asa@calvin.edu >
Subject: Re: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science
> > As George has already pointed out, this is a very inept response. Of >
course, that ID is merely the set theoretic complement of regularity > and
chance shows that 'design' is not an explanation but rather a > position of
ignorance based on the fact that science cannot (yet) > explain a particular
feature. > > I have invited many an ID activist to present their best
explanation > for how the bacterial flagellum was 'designed' but given the
fact that > there do exist plausible evolutionary explanations or
hypotheses, ID > cannot even speak about the flagellum being designed. ID
proponents > argue that these explanations are not detailed enough and that
design > is still the best explanation, but that is an illogical position >
because ID does not explain anything. > > What has ID to offer beyond
'design'? Nothing at all really. And the > proof is in the pudding so the
speak as ID has yet to propose ANY > scientific explanation for what it
claims is 'designed'. > > On 10/20/07, (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan wrote: > >
From the THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY -- > > > > [my title]
Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science > > > > I chanced
upon this very excellent article on intelligent design which I > > want to
recommend to all who are open to intelligence design. Among other > >
things, it explains why intelligent design is science, and that it makes > >
predictions, and is falsifiable, and that the Darwinist theory of NO >
DESIGN > > needs to be tested against the competing intelligent design
theory of REAL > > DESIGN, and that was what Darwin himself was doing. [But
present-day > > Darwinists are obviously afraid to deal with intelligent
design theory.] > > > > Let me quote just the following response to
intelligent design being a > > "science stopper". I think this reply is most
excellent and should put a > > stop to all "science stopper" allegations.
Same for God-of-the-Gaps. > > > >
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf > > > > To
unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with > "unsubscribe asa"
(no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > > To unsubscribe, send a
message to majordomo@calvin.edu with > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the
body of the message. >

George L. Murphy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:10:25 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 00:11:04 EDT