RE: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 16:50:10 EDT

Hi William, using your program example-


In the case of a software program, we know that all programs are written
by people. Even if the code could be generated by a computer
automatically, the code that computer uses was written by a person. So
the analogy is not the same. My question is like if the software
program were found to be developed by nature, not by human
intelligence... which is something that would never happen.


For your analogy, God is the creator of the world like you are a
programmer for software code. But my question was if it could be proven
that everything happened naturally, with no intelligence, then that
would be like discovering computer code that was written by nature
instead of a person. In that case, if a computer program could be
written by nature, then we would say it would be superfluous to say that
a person wrote the same code... and in fact, a programmer wouldn't be
needed at al if nature did it. However, if it is impossible for nature
to code, then we can be sure intelligence and people were involved...
which sounds like the ID position in some ways.


Suppose science found out how nature did everything- what's left for
God? He has no job. Was He the designer? Not if science showed that an
intelligent designer is not necessary and can explain how nature came
into being and designed everything.


However, how far is science from showing that everything was created
naturally, without a need for God? Even if it were true and possible, we
are likely 1,000's of years from it... way to many complex gaps (origin
of life to name just one)! In the meantime, I guess believers of all
stripes (including non-believers) have to go on faith...




From: William Hamilton []
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:35 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.



On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Dehler, Bernie <>

"One needs continually to note that metaphysical claims, whether
atheistic, deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, polytheistic or
theistic, are not supported by any of the sciences."


But if science could explain how everything happened naturally, does
that mean that "God is out of a job?" ...just wondering... if the need
for a Creator would then be superfluous, as Dawkins might likely argue.





As scientists we study _how_ God does things, not the existence of God
Himself, which is beyond the capabilities of science. To carry forward
an example I gave in another post today, suppose I write a program and
distribute the source code. Someone who wishes to understand how the
program works can look at the code, he can compile and link it and run
it. Unless I put my name in a comment, though, he cannot learn diddly
squat about me (except perhaps that I dislike deeply nested if-then-else
clauses). It's the same thing when we study nature. Natural effects can
be traced to natural causes. God, perhaps for artistic reasons or
reasons of elegance, does not leave evidence of His authorship.

William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Rochester, MI/Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 2 16:51:40 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 16:51:40 EDT