>What does ID mean?

E G M (e_g_m@yahoo.com)
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:39:44 -0700 (PDT)

My replies within brackets,

Howard J. Van Till wrote:
What does ID mean?
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:20:50 -0400

In response to a comment of mine, EGM writes:

"Behe will be forever criticized, I believe, in either case, whether he
states who he "believes" the creator is or not - isn't that the case
Dr. Van Till? But after a good close and honest look at his
scientific presentation of some simple but very complex biosystems, it
is difficult to walk away without meditating on the potentiality of a
designer with a mind, not mindless."

Once again, the communication problem is immediately evident. Ed takes
Behe's promotion of 'design' as a call to recognize the prior action
of a
creative mind. If _that_ were the whole meaning of ID, I would be
wholeheartedly in favor of it.

[EGM: I believe that this is certainly part of the (or even the basic)
meaning of ID. A caveat: I don't believe IDers form as an homogeneous
a group or movement as perceived by ASAers and others. In fact, I
_believe_ that they all "recognize the prior action of a creative mind
as a basic philosophy but they don't limit this definition to just
certain type of 'historical formational economy of nature' (in this
vein I could label myself an IDer)].

I believe with all my heart that the
universe is a Creation that was given being by a Creator having an
unfathomably creative mind. I see evidence of that Mind in essentially
everything that is accessible to the empirical sciences.

[EGM: We certainly agree here].

But the
argumentation of the ID proponents centers mostly on the claim that
X or biosystem Y could not have been assembled for the first time
the form-imposing action of a dextrous, craftsman-type agent.

[EGM: I don't know about "centers mostly", that may be the case today
as the group or movement takes shape and because of Behe's book's
popularity. At any rate, given that you recognize the prior action of
a creative mind wholeheartedly (I don't doubt you on this at all),
isn't it possible that one particular (no the only) way that the
creative mind could have expressed His creativity was by assembling
X or biosystem Y for the first time by exercising His form-imposing
action as a dextrous, craftsman-type agent? Why limit the action of
this omnipotent creator to one way or another?]

Howard Van Till:
PS: My reference to Behe's book and its popularity with Christianity
was originally intended to be more of a commentary on CT and the
conservative evangelical Christian community than on Behe. Behe has a
to withhold his views on the identity of the form-imposing agent.
given that strategy, why was the book considered to be a "Christian"

[EGM: Beats me, I don't read CT].

Thanks so much for your replies, I greatly appreciate it and enjoy it.



"in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com