Challenge to ID - Mk II

[wattsr1]

Hi All,


This is a challenge to those who think ID has explanatory power to explain complexity, to offer an example of ID explaining anything complex. It does not matter how you explain except for the following conditions:-

1) The explanation must be 150 or more words long and deal with explaining one topic only. I am making this a condition to prevent things such as “God did it” or “God did it by shuffling quantum states”.

2) You must tell me what you mean by the word “explanation” and this must be in addition to the actual explanation.


Alternatively, if you believe that the above is hopelessly restrictive and unreasonable and is therefore preventing you from participating in this challenge then:-

1) Reword the challenge any way you want,

2) Offer an example,

3) Tell me what you mean by the word “explain”.


Alternatively, if you still believe that the above is hopelessly restrictive and unreasonable and is therefore preventing you from participating, then:-

1) Reword the challenge any way you want and

2) Make that do if you want to.




Regards, Roland

[lee_merrill]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I can't explain human design, so I'm not going to get very far explaining divine design, if that is what you mean.

However, ID principles have explanatory power, such as explaining (as in giving the reason) why we see just point mutations in malarial resistance, if that is what you mean.

Was that 150 words? well, no, but that's the best I can do, I guess I picked alternative two, and removed the wordiness requirement.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And this (http://chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/job.htm) may have a bearing on the question...

He has been told nothing, but he feels the terrible and tingling atmosphere of something which is too good to be told. The refusal of God to explain His design is itself a burning hint of His design. The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.

... it is one of the splendid strokes that God rebukes alike the man who accused and the men who defended Him; that He knocks down pessimists and optimists with the same hammer. And it is in connection with the mechanical and supercilious comforters of Job that there occurs the still deeper and finer inversion of which I have spoken. The mechanical optimist endeavors to justify the universe avowedly upon the ground that it is a rational and consecutive pattern. He points out that the fine thing about the world is that it can all be explained. That is the one point, if I may put it so, on which God, in return, is explicit to the point of violence. God says, in effect, that if there is one fine thing about the world, as far as men are concerned, it is that it cannot be explained. He insists on the inexplicableness of everything. "Hath the rain a father?. . .Out of whose womb came the ice?" (38:28f). He goes farther, and insists on the positive and palpable unreason of things; "Hast thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is, and upon the wilderness wherein there is no man?" (38:26). God will make man see things, if it is only against the black background of nonentity. God will make Job see a startling universe if He can only do it by making Job see an idiotic universe. To startle man, God becomes for an instant a blasphemer; one might almost say that God becomes for an instant an atheist. He unrolls before Job a long panorama of created things, the horse, the eagle, the raven, the wild ass, the peacock, the ostrich, the crocodile. He so describes each of them that it sounds like a monster walking in the sun. The whole is a sort of psalm or rhapsody of the sense of wonder. The maker of all things is astonished at the things he has Himself made.

[wattsr1]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I can't explain human design, so I'm not going to get very far explaining divine design, if that is what you mean.

However, ID principles have explanatory power, such as explaining (as in giving the reason) why we see just point mutations in malarial resistance, if that is what you mean.

Was that 150 words? well, no, but that's the best I can do, I guess I picked alternative two, and removed the wordiness requirement.

Blessings,
Lee



Thank you Lee.


Regards, Roland

[lee_merrill]

:smile:

Blessings,
Lee