Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 12:06:18 EST

This is basically what finished me off with ID. It is their refusal to come clean over the age of the earth, and hence they deserve being described as the Trojan horse of YEC. As a result they make it clear that they have more in common with YEC and us wicked TE types. We have seen the fruits of that alliance in Dover and I am tempted to recite Matthew Arnold's poem On Dover Beach , which of course has been picked up by the Sea of Faith movement in the Church of England and their non-realist view of God. IMO the Sea of faith movement is atheistic even though they have the support of several hundred Anglican clergy, who make ECUSA seem quite orthodox, -----this is just to get Bob going!!!!!!

Having recently checked out the origins of ID there is a definite descent from YEC even if it is not descent with modification Darwinian style. One could say it has a hybrid origin but now seems to approach YEC as an example of convergent evolution. I suppose here I take an intermediate position between Ted Davies and Barbara Forrest/Pennock on the origin of ID.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Robert Schneider
  To: Keith Miller ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:56 PM
  Subject: Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

  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
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    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."
       
      http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
       

    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

    Keith B. Miller
    Research Assistant Professor
    Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
    785-532-2250
    http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Wed Nov 2 12:08:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 12:08:33 EST