Storm, allowing a "driving force" into the Darwinian equation makes you something less than a dogmatic naturalist.

This is a good thing.

Who is more self-deluded, one who accepts the premise of a guiding force, or the one who denies it, despite the evidence?

Stephen J. Gould [avowed atheist/biologist] postulated the notion of non-overlapping magisteria, which as you may know, is the notion that theology and science are non-overlapping disiplines.

"Science studies the age of the rocks, theology studies the Rock of Ages", or something to the effect. What better application of NOMA than allowing ID into mainstream science and then letting the theologians debate the identity of the I in ID.

This too, would be a good thing.

The mysterious external creative element-god you alluded to is the same as Alex's math-god or the god referred to by Einstein, Spinoza and most recently, Hawking.

In my veiw, the commmon thread in the above, is not that the God of the Bible doesn't square with the data so much, but rather, He is prevented from being aknowledged, simply due to dogmatic human-reasoning.

They reject the dogmatism of the Creator.

Another aspect of allowing the driving foot into the door, is that it dictates that there be a determining force in nature, and quite possibly [if not by neccessity], into human history.

In other words, are events determined to happen? I think Hawking addressed this recently. If I am correct, he determined that there is a "determinative element" in nature---he just didn't know what the determination was, or is, or will be.

Of course, how could he.

Brian

• I agree - stormcrow - July 8, 2001 - 23:26 UTC
  • No god(s), Santa(s), etc. beings are needed. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:44 UTC
    • It's just a suspicion - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 19:54 UTC
      • Mario, my post is not for you. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
        • Okay (nt) - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 20:36 UTC