Re: Meaning of ID #2B +2C

From: RDehaan237@aol.com
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 08:12:19 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Meaning of ID #2B +2C"

    In a message dated 12/3/01 5:42:26 PM, bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
    writes:

    Bob: << >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.<

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

    Dave,

    My question is: Why have not TEs (to use a convenient shorthand) joined with
    YECs and IDers in criticizing the Dawkins and Dennetts and Simpsons of the
    evolutionary community, if "this criticism applies equally to them"? Why do
    you immediately shift into criticizing YECs and IDers with a mere slap on
    the wrist for D, D and S?

    I'm not sure what you mean by, "that does not legitimize young earth or ID
    advocates making the same unbiblical claims." What unbiblical claims to you
    refer to?

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

    I think you have it wrong, Dave. Dembski et. al., are trying to _bring
    intelligence into nature_. (1) Identifying and characterizing design in
    biology, for instance, is a legitimate scientific activity. (2) Trying to
    locate the intelligence or intelligent processes that produced the design
    within nature is also a legitimate scientific enterprise. (3) In so far as
    they or anyone else identifies the designer outside of nature, he or she has
    departed the scientific enterprise and taken on a theological and
    philosophical one. One can do (1) and (2) without committing oneself to (3).
    Indeed, it seems to me that it is the opponents of ID who keep on bringing up
    (3).

    <<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.>>

    This is not the goal of ID. SETI and archeology are cited as _examples_ of
    science searching for design and imputing it to intelligence _within nature_.
     Why cannot the same be done for biological design? The ID research program,
    as I understand it is as I have described it above.

    <<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. >>

    I think Behe's position is that irreducible complexity requires that all the
    elements of a biological system must be assembled simultaneously, that they
    cannot be evolved by small steps, i.e., by natural selection, because the
    system cannot function until and unless all the elements are present.

    Do you hold that if it's not evolution, it has to be non-natural? Is it not
    possible that biological systems are first basically designed, and later
    evolved?

    Thanks for your clarifications. I hope my questions are helpful

    Bob



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 08:13:18 EST