Re: Meaning of ID #2B

From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 17:49:44 EST

  • Next message: James Mahaffy: "Blombos site"

    or not to be, as Hamlet said

    My post was poorly worded; most of the statemnets were from Johnson. However, Dembski has claimed that evolution implies atheism and thus denied God's providence, as noted on this list a while ago:
    "Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists." William Dembski, in _Intelligent Design_, InterVarsity Press, p. 112.

    >Is not the criticism deserved by the evolutionist Richard Dawkins, and the philosopher, Daniel Dennett, than whom more outspoken atheistic defenders of evolution and bashers of Christianity and religion in general would be hard to find.<

    Yes, this criticism applies equally to them, but that does not legitimize young earth or ID advocates making the same unbiblical claims.

    >As far as I know, IDers do not pit God against mindless molecular processes <

    That was from a Johnson interview on Dobson's radio show.

    >As I understand those in the ID community, they say that these concepts are not enough to explain intelligent design nor do these concepts rule out intelligent design.<

    The criteria for design proposed by Dembski and others seek to identify situations in which known natural processes are inadequate to explain them. Thus, natual processes and design appear to be mutually contradictory explanations for a given feature.

    >You said, <<Presenting certain things and not others as intelligently designed, based on the criterion that the former purportedly require non-natural intervention, implies that intelligent design requires non-natural intervention. I include activities by intelligent aliens as non-natural. >>

    >Nowhere, as far as I know, do Dembski, Behe, Nelson, or Wells claim that non-natural intervention is the criterion of intelligent design. Please tell me, if you will, what evidence you have to support such a charge.<

    The goal of ID is to infer the activity of a designer, modeled on the search for artificial intelligence, archaeological artifacts, etc. Things are classified as designed if they purportedly require some intelligent action (human, alien, or supernatural) above and beyond the course of natural events. This sounds like non-natural intervention to me.

    Additionally, the steadfast opposition to evolution, instead of recognizing it as a possible means of design, betrays a search for non-natural means of design.

    Hopefully this clarifies what I meant.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        46860 Hilton Dr #1113
        Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
        bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
     

    ________________________________________________________________
    Sent via the WebMail system at mail.davidson.alumlink.com

     
                       



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 03 2001 - 17:39:35 EST