Re: Meaning of ID #2

From: SteamDoc@aol.com
Date: Sat Dec 01 2001 - 11:58:16 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Meaning of ID #2"

    In a message dated 12/1/01 5:22:35 AM Mountain Standard Time, RDehaan237
    writes:

    > You asked, <<"Is the Sun "intelligently designed?">> Run it through the
    > filter and it would probably be caught at the first node, and the decision
    > would be that it is not considered to be designed.
    >

    FIrst, I want to acknowledge Bob's statement that he is not Bill Dembski, and
    should not be expected to defend ID in detail. So I don't expect him to
    reply to this.

    I do, however, want to point out a consequence if Bob's use of the ID filters
    above is correct. That would give us an object (the Sun) that the Bible
    tells us God made, but that is not "intelligently designed." That would seem
    to weaken any claim by ID to have theological or apologetic value.

    I think the problem here is that, from a Christian viewpoint, *everything* is
    intelligently designed (in the normal English sense of those words), because
    God is the intelligent designer/creator of everything. So the ID movement is
    using those words somehow differently. Since both levels of their "filter"
    (regular events and chance) refer to *mechanisms* for things happening, I
    think the difference must be that ID is a claim not just about design (in the
    normal sense of planning and conceptualization) but also about the mechanism
    by which the designed object or event is assembled.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
    "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
     attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 11:59:47 EST