Re: [asa] STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed May 30 2007 - 19:03:34 EDT

I just received the June 2007 PSCF and was eagerly tearing it open to read
Alan Padgett's article (Alan is from Minnesota and I am always interested in
his views) when I came across the piece by Pattle Pun, Integration and
Confrontation of Contemporary Worldviews: Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Well, Pun, a biologist from Wheaton, is definitely not associating design
with a theory of the origin of matter and the cosmos (keep in mind I havent
read the article in depth, but just scanned over it). Cosmological Design
(CD?), the origin of matter and the laws of nature, seem to be one sort of
concern; the arrangement of existing matter is another sort. That
division, to me, seems rather basic. I am frustrated by these always
getting mixed together. The only possible connection between them I can
think of would be the alleged intelligence itself. But that connecting
intelligence is only one certain type of intelligence. And that is a
religious proposition. One I am not willing to make. I wont take that leap
of faith.
So, I myself just don't connect the two domains of knowledge. (At least I
won't until I am shown why the two should be connected). It seems to me
religionists want to make that connection (and perhaps with good reason).
And so do anti-religionists (such as certain atheists). But it also puts
the entire question into the domain of being scientism. And that's true,
even if you are a Dawkinsonian making the assumption about some worrisome
intelligence, or a Christian making the assumption about some preferred
intelligence. Both are a form of scientism, are they not? (Can someone
tell me why they are not?) I believe it would be best to not make that
connection, and instead treat fantasy intelligences separately from design.
Where design is defined as the type of design expressed in a non-natural
re-arrangement of particles. Why does non-natural have to mean
super-natural?

On 5/30/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Rich Blinne wrote:
> > By way of counter-example here's another anti-ID statement that doesn't
> > have the problematic re-definition of methodological naturalism:
> >
> > The RASC Ottawa Centre supports high standards of scientific
>
> Rich
> I understand that other statements are more carefully worded and that
> the Iowa statement should have been more careful. However, it seems to
> me that one could easily take the view that "natural phenomena" covers
> all events in space-time that are not caused by something outside the
> continuum eg super natural. In such a view the resurrection while
> occurring in space-time is not a "natural phenomena". You could well be
> right in your conclusion of duplicity, but I'd like to see some other
> evidence that philosophical naturalism was what was meant before coming
> to that conclusion.
>
> Dave W
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 30 19:04:04 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 30 2007 - 19:04:05 EDT