Re: [asa] lock-picking tools

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Wed Oct 15 2008 - 17:22:03 EDT

I'm getting an underlying assumption here, one that reflects the ID
attitude, namely that God cannot be involved if the explanation is
scientific. However, the true theistic view is that God is as much
involved in natural law as in miracles. It is clear that we do not yet
have a scientific explanation for the origin of life, but my faith will
not be changed whether a scientific explanation is forthcoming or is
never discovered. I'm a theist, not a deist.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:48:24 -0500 writes:
> This comes out of a local discussion last night (led by Keith
> Miller), but I
> thought I would submit this resulting percolation of my thoughts
> here for
> reactions or corrections.
> The question was raised about whether or not we 'cede too much to
> science' when
> we accept or invite all of its explanatory power as it may bear on
> origins of
> life or on the nature of human thought or human will. And this, of
> course, led
> to discussion about the limitations of science. ...& hence my
> condensed
> night-time ruminations below...
> Imagine we are all in a room & are exploring that environ. The room
> has some
> doors, but different groups think differently about whether the
> doors ought to
> be opened. Historically, some groups have tried to block access
> from the
> inside, and this provokes protest from those who would like to
> explore. Others
> (including ECs and IDs) advocate free exploration without
> artificially imposed
> limitations. Any stubborn doors we encounter are locked *from the
> outside*, and
> science can legitimately try to pick the lock (and in some arenas
> has
> historically succeeded). But here we encounter a difference
> between ID and
> EC. IDs say: “That door may lead to evidence of a mind or
> ‘design’” In fact
> some IDs would say the door was already opened and the new rooms
> give us exactly
> that evidence. ECs, however, maintain that the IDs have probably
> never left the
> ordinary room we are in and that the evidence IDs present may still
> have
> naturalistic explanations, even if we can’t explain it *yet*. IDs,
> in their
> turn, think that ECs are blocking a door through which science
> should be able to
> pronounce (or at least recognize) evidence of design. ECs counter
> that rather
> than leading to new avenues of exploration the design conclusion
> leads to an
> impenetrable rock wall (science stopper). And IDs don’t seem to
> object to this
> concept per se, but seem to want an acknowledgment that such a rock
> wall at
> least exists on which naturalistic tools are no longer sufficient.
> So here is the interesting question for me: Can science find or
> map its own
> "rock wall" boundary or even conclude that such a boundary exists?
> IDs say, in
> principle, YES. ECs say, in principle: NO. And militant
> atheists say: “no
> such boundaries for science exist at all.” IDs and ECs (as
> Christians) should
> at least be able to unite in their opposition to the last category
> and only
> differ in how such a boundary can be explicated.
> --Merv
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Find the apartment of your dreams by clicking here now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 15 18:22:05 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 15 2008 - 18:22:05 EDT