Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2D from Timaeus: to Dennis Venema

From: Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 19:40:46 EDT

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:20:22 -0500 mrb22667@kansas.net writes:
>
>> <big snip>
>> But to conclude that presently observed natural laws (i.e. planetary
>> orbits and
>> embryology) may operate on a different set of rules now than in the
>> past, that
>> is quite another claim. It's a good and bold stroke, and I respect
>> it as a
>> possible answer to the "knit together in the womb" challenge. But
>> while this
>> seems to border on (or cross in to) a realm of non-falsifiability,
>> I'm sure that
>> is just what I.D. people are working on ---finding present evidence
>> that
>> existing sets of laws are insufficient to explain everything. I see
>> that as a
>> "burden of proof" load that will crush any side that accepts it;
>> hence both
>> sides eagerness to make the other carry it. (& their eagerness to
>> prematurely
>> claim "proof" on what can they can see now.) Possible theme:
>> 'Proof' always
>> seems to go 'poof'. Such a burden will, I predict, be
>> insurmountable in the
>> end and leave us ultimately back with faith anyway.
>>
>> --Merv
>>
>>
> First, the claim that existing laws are insufficient is grossly
> inadequate, for what is tacitly advanced is that all future discoveries
> will also be inadequate. One should recognize this as hubris.
>
> Second, faith is not what we ultimately return to, but our position at
> all times. Science depends on some assumptions that cannot be proved
> scientifically. They are a matter of faith, but most of us are radically
> committed to them. Additionally, much as I hate it, materialism is a
> consistent philosophical position, as is solipsism. There is a faith in
> materialism exemplified by some, just as there is a faith in theism.
> Sophisticated Christians recognize that they cannot prove this, but they
> are totally committed.
> Dave (ASA)
>
>
Thanks for your clarification emphasizing our sustained commitment to
faith. Yes, it would be hubris for ID people to claim the permanent
insufficiency of all naturalistic discoveries, and yet, it may be hubris
for naturalists to claim that no compelling evidence will ever be
discovered that would point to design. I can't imagine what form that
evidence would take, but then again, I haven't gotten very far into the
ID reading list yet. So it might be more hubris for me personally to
dismiss ID than perhaps for some of you. Given that there must already
be a disputed body of work (mathematical?) that ID people point to, and
that others reject, I'm guessing there will never be anything found that
can transcend the prior faith commitments of those committed to and
committed against. In the scientific world, the chasm is fixed...

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 29 19:36:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 29 2008 - 19:36:12 EDT