Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Tue May 26 2009 - 22:30:42 EDT

Cameron wrote:
> I am puzzled by your last paragraph. If there is an "anthropic law"
> written into the universe which increases the available probabilistic
> resources to the point where the macroevolutionary creation of man is
> highly probable or even inevitable, what is such a law if not a
> manifestation of design? If Randy wants to toy with an anthropic
> principle, that's fine with me. It will lead him straight to design.

Cameron,
  Since you haven't been on the list very long, you really couldn't have a
good idea of where I stand on the design issue. Let me restate it, hopefully
more clearly than in the past.

I strongly affirm the position of intelligent design. That's with lower case
and not upper case, as Owen Gingerich points out. I find the handiwork of
God mightily displayed throughout the universe. Yes, I see DESIGN
everywhere. I see it in every action and every reaction in the universe.
Every lab experiment that measures a physical property is a superb
demonstration of design. The reproducibility and comprehensibility of nature
simply shouts with design. Ideas like anthropic principle and ID are
interesting philosophies but still meager. ID is virtually anemic, looking
only at apparent gaps and patterns in esoteric aspects of biochemical
molecules that require training in math, philosophy and biochemistry to
understand.

  Yes, I know you have stated that ID advocates also believe God is the
creator of all processes, not just the ones where they believe they have
detected design. But they don't see design everywhere and I think that is a
shortcoming. I think the difference may be that I like to start with the
well-known two-book model. Using an integrative approach of scientific study
of nature and a theological study of God's revelation through the
incarnation/crucifixion/resurrection, we see design everywhere. When we
limit our approach to "science only", i.e. a one-book model, we really don't
make much progress, be it ID or the anthropic principle. And whatever vague
notion we end up with doesn't correlate with the Judeo-Christian God except
by arbitrary definition. It is difficult for ID, not being accepted as
science and not identifying with Christianity, to live up to its vision of
being a bridge between science and Christian faith. I believe that id,
however, inherently integrates science and Christian faith and leads to
fundamental harmony.

  To me, Christianity teaches that all humans everywhere can detect the
power and glory of God. No special degree necessary. His work is detectable
by all. No, restricting one's study to science alone won't get you very far
but the two-book model is very powerful. Together, those books of revelation
provide a wonderful perspective of our personal and incarnate God.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 26 22:31:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 26 2009 - 22:31:12 EDT