Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: Robert Schneider <>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 09:56:10 EST

I agree with Keith's assessment of ID and appreciate his comments.

It is also interesting to read the final paragraph of Dembski's article linked below:

       I close with a story about Henry Morris's son John Morris, the president of ICR. In the spring of 2001, I was invited to give some talks at UCSD and in the surrounding area. John showed up at one of my talks, introduced himself, and invited me to visit him at the ICR campus. I took him up on his offer and visited the following day. He graciously showed me around and had me speak about intelligent design to the ICR scholars who were present that day (unfortunately, neither Henry Morris nor Duane Gish were in). Toward the end of my visit, John noted that ID fell short of a full creation model, but then commended ID for conclusively showing the bankruptcy of Darwinism. He was right. As a limited tool for dislodging materialism, developing the concept of design, and applying it to biological systems, ID is the best thing going. I would therefore like to encourage Henry Morris and all young-earth creationists to view intelligent design as a friend in the destruction of Darwinian materialism and in developing the scientific understanding of design in nature.

Bob comments:

it is this kind of strategy that creates a problem for the ID movement, because when YECs tout ID arguments against "Darwinism," they are doing exactly what will convince mainstream scientists that ID is a form of the kind of creationnism they detest. While this may be a partnership of convenience (of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort) from which the YECs gain much, it cannot help ID at all in the world of science. I wonder if Dembski has really thought through the implications of this pas-de-deux.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Keith Miller
  Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

    Here's one from Dembski:
    "To be sure, I am not a young earth creationist nor do I support their efforts to harmonize science with a particular interpretation of Genesis."


  The issue is not whether some ID advocates have stated that they are not young Earth creationists, but rather whether the "theory of ID" (however that is envisioned) has any scientific content that would distinguish it from those who reject common descent, if not an ancient Earth. Young Earth advocates and those who reject common descent at virtually any level of the taxonomic hierarchy can, and do, consider their arguments as employing ID.

  In my view, the inability of ID to make any statement about when and where in evolutionary history the design events are presumed to occur shows the practical emptiness of their arguments. There is absolutely no agreement among ID proponents about which structures or biological transitions are those which demand the action of a non-natural designing agent. Basically any transition or biological structure that a particular individual sees as too complex to yield to future natural cause and effect explanations can be cited as an example. There is no consistent criteria by which other investigators can independently identify a candidate structure.


  Keith B. Miller
  Research Assistant Professor
  Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
  Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
Received on Wed Nov 2 09:58:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 09:58:04 EST