From: PvM <>
Date: Fri Jun 08 2007 - 22:44:20 EDT

On 6/8/07, <> wrote:
> Hi Randy,
> you wrote,
> > How would you recognize the language, or coding, unless you had prior
> knowledge
> > of the designer and his codebook?
> But to the contrary, how can you say that we cannot recognize the language,
> or coding, unless you have prior knowledge of the designer and his codebook?
> Understanding him is always a possibility.
> One obvious fact is that we wouldn't need to understand a designer's native
> language or coding as long as he understands ours and intends to communicate
> with us. In fact, a lack of a priori knowledge should actually lead us to
> the opposite conclusion: if we lack a priori knowledge about him then that
> alone prohibits us from saying what he can or cannot do. Thus it is
> logically impossible to say that he cannot make his designs recognizable to
> us when we lack a priori knowledge. So this particular argument against ID
> is a self-defeating argument.

Sure, we can make assumptions about the motives of the designer but ID
refuses, in fact admits it is incapable of taking this step. In other
words, this particular argument is quite a valid one. And remember
that ID attempts to find 'design' not by unraveling the message but
rather via a negative argument that 'science/methodological
naturalism/regularity&chance processes' cannot explain it.

> Furthermore, the DNA thing was just a silly example intended to illustrate
> the point. It's easy to think of many other examples that involve smaller
> levels of "coding" (or none at all) and yet clearly point to the action of
> an intelligence without any a priori knowledge of the being's motives or
> abilities. I stand by this because it is easy to think of examples.

Sure, there may be some trivial examples in which it may be hard to
deny a designer but such inferences are not really based on the ID
approach. When we see 'Made by Jehova' in DNA, do we a) accept this as
evidence of a God? b) a practical joke? or what?

> To balance what I am saying, I want to agree with what Wayne has just
> posted: it makes no sense for God to put His messages where only the wise
> can see them (as in DNA codes), well hidden from the babes, because in the
> Bible God has promised exactly the opposite. Hence, I see the IDM as being
> contrary to the Bible.

> Again, I'm not saying that ID has found proof of intelligence via their
> methods, only that our argument amounts to limiting the abilities of an
> unknown intelligence and therefore it is we, not the IDers, who are being
> illogical.

That's an illogical argument. ID, by refusing to accept any
limitations to its designer can explain anything and thus nothing as
evidenced by its inability to explain the 'design' of the flagella or
other so called 'designed' features.
Without understanding the capabilities of the designer, we can say
little about how to detect its actions reliably. And that's what makes
ID flawed because it is inherently unreliable. If we refuse to limit
the abilities of the designer, then anything goes.

From a theological perspective we may argue that God can do anything
(although even that has its paradoxes) but the question is what would
God really want to do? Without understanding the latter we may very
well see His Hand in the 'designs' we see so clearly in the clouds
rushing by.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:44:20 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 08 2007 - 22:44:31 EDT