Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: <philtill@aol.com>
Date: Wed May 09 2007 - 02:47:46 EDT

Pim wrote:
 
> the argument cannot be easily saved by adding what you
> call ID assumptions such as 'inside space time and subject to physics
> because they are certainly not ID assumptions necessary for the
> Explanatory Filter.
 
I believe the IDers have not stated it as clearly as they might because they have not previously considered the silly idea that Dawkins has recently brought up.
 
Their EF discusses regularity and chance. Regularity is considered because physics produces lots of regularity for things that are INSIDE the material world. What basis do you have to evaluate regularity outside of physics? Can you say as a matter of observation that regularity is NOT an indicator of design for things outside of physics? What may produce regularity where physics does not exist? IDers cannot define an EF based on a realm where they have no knowledge, and I am quite sure they did not intend to. Surely you know that they meant "in spacetime" and "in physics" when they decided to discuss regularity.
 
Likewise, chance is considered because physics provides lots of opportunities for things to occur by chance INSIDE the material world, and we know inside this realm if it is chance that produces some patterns then it is not an indicator of design. Outside the material world, there is no basis to describe what we mean by "chance" and so nobody can define an EF to look for chance as a negative indicator of design outside of the material world. Surely you know that they were talking about "in spacetime" and "in physics" when they decided to discuss chance.
 
The IDers will simply amend their EF to clarify this point now that the silly argument has been started by Dawkins. To try to press this point as if it is an earth-shattering revelation is silly. (And BTW, I'm not saying that I agree with ID; I'm just saying that this argument will only last as long as it takes the IDers to clarify what they meant.)
 
Suppose you don't want to allow them to clarify their EF. Suppose you say, "No, you must look for chance in God as well as in bacteria." They will say, "no, you can do that if you want to, but we think you are being silly. We have no basis to define what "chance" means outside of spacetime, and neither do you." There is really no response to that. At least I hope nobody tries, because it would be baseless.
 
Now can't you see my point and agree with this? Come now, let's be reasonable about this. No more assertions that you just like Dawkins' argument -- please instead really try to see my point. Can't you agree with it?
 
God bless,
Phil
 
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 9 02:48:27 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 09 2007 - 02:48:27 EDT