FW: Definition of "Species"

From: Shuan Rose (shuanr@boo.net)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 13:00:47 EST

  • Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: Darwinism/Compassion"

    Re: Definition of "Species"
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:55 PM
    To: Howard J. Van Till
    Subject: RE: Definition of "Species"

    Would it be fair to say that IDers like Johnson and Dembski believe that God
    created each species(however defined) seperately, and that species("kinds")
    are not related to each other by common descent? This would make them
    Progressive Creationists, I guess.It's hard to tell what they believe,
    because they never propose their own model of what happened! Their motto
    seems to be " I don't know what happened, but whatever it was, it certainly
    wasn't evolution".
      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
      Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:04 PM
      To: gordon brown; bivalve
      Cc: asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: Re: Definition of "Species"

    >From: gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>

    > Have the ID people changed the meaning of intelligent design so that no
    > else can use it in a favorable sense?

      Yes, in effect. In most ID literature, to be "intelligently designed"
    means to be assembled (at least for the first time) by the form-conferring
    action of some unembodied extranatural agent because the system of natural
    formational processes is presumed inadequate to account for that assembly.

      Behe: "The laws of nature can organize matterŠ. The most relevant laws
    are those of biological reproduction, mutation and natural selection. If a
    biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws, then
    we cannot conclude that it was designed." Darwin¹s Black Box, p. 203.

      The following is an excerpt taken from an edited version of my review of
    Dembski's The Design Inference published in Zygon.


      "What does Dembski here mean by 'design' and 'intelligent agency'? What
    exactly does it mean to be designed? What does an intelligent agent do?
    "The principal characteristic of intelligent agency," says Dembski, "is
    directed contingency, or what we call choice. ...Intelligent agency always
    entails discrimination, choosing certain things and ruling out others." (p.
    62) As an example, Dembski asks the reader to consider two events in which
    ink is applied to paper. In one case the ink is accidentally spilled onto
    the paper from a bottle. In the other case a person writes a message on the
    paper with a fountain pen. Upon encountering the two pieces of inked paper
    and seeking causal explanations for the observed distribution of ink, it is
    clear, notes Dembski, that only one case demands an appeal to the action of
    an intelligent agent. The written message required a discriminating choice.
    The blotch of spilled ink did not.

      "Yes, but is a discriminating choice all that was required? Clearly not,
    and this is crucial to our present concern. The intelligent agent also had
    to effect that choice. She had to take pen in hand and write the chosen
    message. In Dembski's example, and implicit in other literature of the
    Intelligent Design movement as well, the 'design' action of an intelligent
    agent is two-fold. First, the mind of the agent must thoughtfully
    conceptualize something (what Dembski refers to as making a discriminating
    choice). But then the intelligent agent (or Intelligent Designer) must
    perform an additional act in order to effect what was first conceptualized
    or chosen. The agent in the inked paper example had to place the pen in
    contact with the paper and coerce it to move in a prescribed pattern.
    Mind-action had to be followed by hand-action. Since the materials at
    hand‹pen, ink, and paper‹did not possess the requisite capabilities to form
    a written message, the agent had to act directly to force a particular event
    to occur. To understand the essence of contemporary appeals to design,
    especially 'Intelligent Design,' it is essential for us to see that the
    action in question is two actions, not one. Although most proponents of ID
    have chosen not to say so candidly, to be 'intelligently designed' is, by
    implication, to be both conceptualized for a purpose, and assembled/formed
    by the action of an extranatural agent."


    > That would be similar to what the
    > YEC's have done to the meaning of creationist. If God is sovereign,
    > whatever happens is intelligently designed, no matter how directly or
    > indirectly God is involved.

      But, of course, that depends on what "intelligently designed" means. Back
    to your original question.

      Howard Van Till

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 20 2002 - 13:01:19 EST