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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Tue May 26 2009 - 23:32:20 EDT

Randy,

I am not invoking any sort of vitalism. Those who claim that life can be characterized in purely physical terms let them tell us what that characterization is. The added substance is definitely not physical and thus has to be nonphysical/supernatural. I wrote a letter to PSCF, “Can science make the "breath" of God part of its subject matter?” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7049/is_3_60/ai_n28562903/ I think the answer to that question is no!
Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac [randyisaac@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:29 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

Moorad wrote:
> Let me up the ante. Purely physical processes cannot create or bring about
> a human being with the aid and knowledge of only the genetic code, but
> even life cannot so arise
> either. This is the fundamental point that the living cannot come from the
> nonliving. I suppose only God can bring this about.

Does that mean you believe in vitalism? There's a nice history and summary
of it in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism
Or would you distinguish your view from vitalism in that the added
"substance" must be non-physical?
If the latter, would you mind sharing with us the evidence both for and
against your position?

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

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 23:34:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 26 2009 - 23:34:12 EDT