[MD] Intelligent Design

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Ian,

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve, it's the conflation of creation and design that is driving me nuts.

Steve:
If it's really bugging you, perhaps you'll explain the distinction you
want to draw?



Ian:
> Science has nothing to do with creation (of something from nothing).

Steve:
What makes you think so?



Ian:
> Evolution of things (big bangs, galaxies and people) since creation
> need have nothing to do with any god, since in principle it is
> amenable to science. Of course being amenable in principle is a long
> way from being scientifically tractable in practice, so in order not
> to waste everyone's time on pointless argument some mythos-based gap
> fillers are useful. (Life being too short and just complicated enough
> - ask Goldilocks)


Steve:
Creationists and religious folks generally say the opposite--that the
fact that the universe is amenable to science is no argument against
their belief that all of this must be guided by God.


Ian:
> Cosmogeny (metaphyisical or theological) has nothing to do with
> science ever, not even in principle.
>
> How hard can it be ?

Steve:
Cosmogeny is a branch of astrophysics.

You get so frustrated (how hard can it be?) but you don't explain
yourself. What makes you think that science has nothing to do with
cosmogeny even in principle? What sort of knowledge is possible that
science can't even in principle try to know?

Best,
Steve