[CS-FSLUG] Re: Intelligent design...

[Timothy Butler]

>
> Without being able to scientifically prove the existance of God, one
> can't really prove the veracity of intelligent design.  The most that
> can really be done is to prove other theories highly improbable.
> Hence, I think that the scientific method is not an appropriate set of
> "tools" for dealing with instances in which divine intervention is
> involved.

     Of course, neither can one demonstrate how the big bang would  
have occurred in any form (intelligent or not). :-)

     But, are you familiar with John Hick? He has a neat positive  
verification scheme. He uses the parable of the celestial city. Let's  
say the two of us are walking down the road. I say I'm going to the  
celestial city and you say the celestial city doesn't exist. At least  
in the days before satellites, you really couldn't prove me wrong  
(since I could always say, "the city is just a bit further") but if  
we arrive at the celestial city, I've proven you wrong. In Hickian  
eschatological verification, he notes that presuming God exists, we  
can one day verify that (after death), but if we are incorrect, we  
cannot get a negative verification. In other words, Hick has applied  
Pascal to the scientific method. :-)

     -Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "Now  that  I am a  Christian  I  do have moods
Editor, OfB.biz   | in which the whole thing looks very improbable:
tbutler at ofb.biz   | but when I was an  atheist I had moods in which
timothybutler.us  | Christianity looked terribly probable."
                                                       -- C.S. Lewis