Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 14:09:41 EST

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:33:54 -0500 "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
writes:
> >>> "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> 11/02/05 9:56 AM
> >>>writes:
>
> 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.
>
> Ted replies:
> I agree with Bob's comments. I am responding in order to answer
> the
> implied question at the end: has Dembski thought this through?
>
> I have directly asked several IDs about this--Phil Johnson, Bill
> Dembski,
> some others. Here is their consistent response: Yes, we have
> thought this
> through. We have tried to find allies among the TEs, and they have
> let us
> down--which greatly disappoints us. Thus, we've had to turn in the
> other
> direction. Why weren't you TEs (they rightly include me with the
> group of
> TEs who have not been persuaded to join the ID movement) more
> supportive?
> Don't you agree with us about the backruptcy of materialism? Why
> won't you
> help us make the case for design?
>
> They've pretty much washed their hands and moved on. Their number
> one goal
> is cultural transformation, and Christans like me who think that you
> can't
> get there from "irreducible complexity" are a great disappointment
> to them.
> At least they aren't angry personally with me, b/c I do my best (at
> least I
> think I do my best, and they often agree with this assessment) to
> present ID
> as fairly as I can and to defend what I believe are fair questions
> being
> asked by ID. Some others in the TE camp, however, really get their
> dander
> up. I'm not going to fill in the blanks.
>
> In the politics of science, the politics tends to dominate the
> science. It
> works both ways.
>
> ted
>
Ted's answer requires more analysis. Both ID and TE oppose materialism.
However, battling a position using lies is not appropriate. The claim
that they are differentiating an intelligence from the deity is a
falsehood, evidenced by their adoption of YEC in the face of YEC
misrepresentation of virtually every scientific fact we've discovered.

Materialism is a philosophical doctrine. As such, it cannot be disproved
scientifically. Indeed, it cannot be disproved, for it can be developed
consistently. It has its problems, for there are places where its only
response can be "That's just the way it is." Unfortunately, there are
parallel problems in theism. Both materialism and theism are consistent
with evolution. But not all theistic claims can fit. Still materialism
was consistent with /creatio ex nihilo/ in the Steady State Theory. SST
has generally been abandoned in the face of the observation of remanent
radiation, but there are still some pockets of insistence. ID thinks it
is battling materialism when it battles evolution, but this is a silly
mistake. It may persuade the scientifically and theologically ignorant,
who are a very large majority in the States. But their assumption that
what we don't understand both will never be understood and involves
direct intervention is ridiculous and false.
Dave
Received on Wed Nov 2 14:13:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 14:13:29 EST