RE: [asa] Of Stars and Starfish (divine creative action, from Timaeus thread)

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu Sep 25 2008 - 17:53:44 EDT

Allan stated: "But let's examine this idea in the context of less
controversial science. Consider the development (evolution, if you will) of
stars. Except for YECs, most ID proponents seem to have no problem with the
"natural" explanations science has developed for star formation, in terms of
gravity, fusion, etc. But these explanations for star formation make no
reference to God! If the ID people were consistent in their logic, they
would be opposing the "methodological atheism" in astronomy. Yet *these*
natural explanations, with no place for "direct divine governance", with no
room for God to "direct [stellar] evolution personally" do not seem to be
objectionable.

I too wonder why other analogies demonstrating a sense of irreducible
complexity, have not stirred similar interest or create greater reserve, at
least, in the promotion of I.D.

Not only is the stellar formation process a seemingly intractable problem,
but finding a natural explanation for planetary formation appears to be even
further beyond our grasp. [Stars and starfish, planets and plants.] An
expert in this field, Scott Tremaine (Princeton), introduced two amusing
"laws" addressing this complexity:

1) All theoretical predictions about the properties of exosolar planets
are wrong.
2) The most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't
happen.

It seems quite logical that, in time, these complexities will find resolve
with the help of better computers running better models, which are coming as
a result of the observations of accretion disks and exoplanetary
discoveries. There does not seem to be any sense at this point that some
new forces of nature need be found, which may not be the believed case for
I.D., admittedly.

Also, I am hopeful Randy's second question will be addressed (or have I
missed it somehow?). Namely:

"One more comment/question if I may. In that paragraph you state "The
science of ID, insofar as it can be accepted as science, can establish only
the fact of design" I can certainly agree that the methods of ID are quite
useful in ascertaining the fact of design when it comes to human activity
(or other sentient beings that we know in this universe). I have yet to see
a cogent argument that design can be established scientifically in the
abstract, with no knowledge or independent indication of the designer. Isn't
science limited, at best, to saying "we don't know" or even "it looks
designed" and cannot go beyond that level?"

Are there measurable objective elements within I.D. that quantify complexity
and take it beyond subjective opinion?

"Coope"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 25 17:54:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 25 2008 - 17:54:12 EDT