From: Steve Petermann (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 11:03:34 EDT
I'm curious about the compatibility of ID with your RFEP. As I understand
it, your system does not rule out supernatural activity. Does this mean
that RFEP is amenable to the possibility of some sort of ongoing divine
intelligent design activity?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <email@example.com>
To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Creationists Running for School Board
> >From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> 3 questions, with an invitation to pose answers (which I shall do with
> unmitigated candor):
> > If [Johnson] and his camp were to disavow the YECs, what would be
> The right to be considered less concerned about the strategy of winning
> popular support and more concerned with speaking their actual beliefs
> > Would the scientific establishment suddenly warm up to ID?
> No, the ID leadership would still have to demonstrate that they are
> anything more than a highly verbose way of saying, "In the absence of
> complete and detailed causally specific natural explanations for the
> evolutionary development of every biotic system and subsystem, it is
> logically permissible to posit that some of these systems and subsystems
> were assembled, at least for the fist time, by some unidentified,
> unembodied, choice-making agent who is not necessarily God."
> ID leaders could also gain respect by, a) saying forthrightly that their
> movement is driven not only to defeat maximal naturalism, but any other
> viewpoint that questions supernaturalism (viewpoints that posit coercive
> divine intervention), or b) ceasing to blur the important distinctions
> maximal naturalism, minimal naturalism, methodological naturalism, and
> naturalistic theism, and c) admitting that the word couplet "intelligently
> designed" is mostly a marketing slogan that substitutes for "assembled by
> supernatural intervention" and functions as a facade in front of the
> religious motivation that is essential to the movement.
> > Would they [the "scientific establishment," whatever that is] cease
> > calling ID advocates, "intelligent design creationists," in an effort to
> > dismiss their arguments without engaging them?
> ID propositions would be much easier to engage if ID rhetoric used
> terminology that more honestly and straightforwardly expressed what ID
> proponents actually want to posit. If, for instance, words like "design,"
> "intelligence," "chance," "complexity," and "specified" had their
> conventional meanings instead of being given unconventional meanings
> inserted by ID writers, critics could engage ID propositions with far
> greater clarity.
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 11:06:19 EDT