Re: Fwd: Identity of the ID designer

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 17:15:16 EST

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "RE: Evolution wars"

    I give up. You win. For me to reply to all the misunderstandings and factual
    errors in the message below would be unfruitful. You read so much into my
    e-mail posts that is not there and are so keen in discussing motivations
    that I must find other venues to pursue the issues.

    You may have the last word on this one (do I sound like Glenn?)

    John W. Burgeson (Burgy)

    >From: George Murphy <>
    >To: John Burgeson <>
    >Subject: Re: Fwd: Identity of the ID designer
    >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:51:34 -0500
    >John Burgeson wrote:
    > >
    > > George wrote: "What I did in that earlier post was to explain why it is
    > > >important to deal with >the real ID movement and not merely its
    > > >claims or >problems. ...>"
    > >
    > > Which I observed was not at all a response to my question.
    > >
    > > "> Let me add that I have not talked about the "motives" of
    > > >IDers in the sense of>trying to get their heads guessing why they say
    > > >they do. It is>rather a question>of looking at what they actually
    > > >and say."
    > >
    > > I wish I could think of some way to ask you the question so that you
    > > address it and not talk about other things. I have tried three times. I
    > > asked "what about Y" and you have replied "Z is much more interesting to
    > > discuss."
    > There have been plenty of discussions of the claims of ID
    >_qua_ science.
    >I am
    >willing to grant that they have pointed out some things that current
    >theories have not
    >explained - the development of information and complex structures in some
    > That is all they have done as far as science is concerned. They have
    >no positive explanations of those phenomena in terms of natural processes.
    >Their basic
    >ID hypothesis results in no testable predictions of "novel facts." (To
    >those who
    >disagree with this statement I would say mere "Name one.")
    > To go more deeply into that would require us to talk about things you
    >don't want
    >to talk about - the IDers understanding of how science works and the
    >pre-suppositions of their arguments.
    > 1st - & this gets us back to the subject line of this whole
    >thread - the
    >argument accomplishes nothing if the Intelligent Designer is not God. The
    >of any natural designer (e.g., with directed panspermia) immediately raises
    >the same
    >questions about that designer that were originally asked about terrestrial
    > 2d - it's clear from numerous statements of ID proponents that they
    >the Intelligent Designer in fact to be God.
    > Now you want to rule out all these references to God because
    >you want to
    >only about the science and not the theology of ID. But that simply won't
    >work. If ID
    >is to be science then one has to be able to ask about ways of testing its
    >claims. &
    >investigating God by scientific means is something quite different from
    >some proposed natural process as an explanation for some phenomenon. The
    >nature of the
    >Designer is crucial to any scientific evaluation of the ID claim.
    > Matters would be different if the IDers proposed natural processes by
    >design is supposed to be accomplished. Then their procedure would be in
    >line with the
    >idea that God acts in the world through natural processes. But they make
    >no such
    >proposals. (& again, if anyone disagrees, "Name one." & in fact this
    >defect of ID is
    >just another face of its inability to predict novel facts.)
    > Having said that, I find your unwillingness to consider the
    >ID movement as
    >actually exists very strange. In discussing abortion or homosexuality,
    >e.g., you refuse
    >to deal with these issues as theological or ethical abstractions, but want
    >to bring the
    >experience of women who have had abortions, homosexuals &c into the
    >discussion. But in
    >talking about ID you take exactly the opposite approach. You want to
    >discuss it as an
    >abstract scientific theory & refuse to consider what the ID movement made
    >up of real
    >people, carrying out real actions to influence state boards of education,
    >legislators &c, is. That seems very odd.
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >George L. Murphy

    The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:48:59 EST