Re: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 20:49:40 EDT

On 10/21/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Design" or "appearance of design" has no theological significance

> I don't understand how you can say this. Either we observe design or we
> don't. And to answer Pim's question about appealing to secular scientists,
> the fact that they admit it as well (albeit without attributing it to God)
> establishes objectively that design exists and it is not just an overactive
> imagination of Dembski or Behe. Once established, the only question
> remaining is how it got there, and that is where the parallel with the
> Pharisees come in.

As I have already explained, design, the set theoretic complement of
regularity and chance has no theological significance, nor does the
fact that some see an appearance of design add anything to the concept
of design. Dembski and Behe see design not in what these people call
design but rather they see design in science's inability to explain.
The question of 'design' is that there is a step from design to
designer, a step which is non trivial and in case of ID, fraught with
many problems. So let's assume that we accept the (apparent) design in
nature, how would science progress differently if we presume that this
design is real design? I'd argue that science cannot progress any
differently. What is this 'design' we observe? We humans are very well
tuned to see design, likely an evolutionary adaptation, so why is us
seeing appearances of design relevant? Let alone, how would science
proceed?
I find your reasoning to be logically flawed, design cannot be rely on
the belief of people but rather on what the evidence shows us.

> That is why trying to represent God in these purely scientific terms to
> those in the terminal clutches of scientism is misguided. They are the ones

Indeed, which is why I oppose ID.

> seeking the same signs as the Pharisees that were denied. Those that seek
> Him must believe first or as Jesus said even if they saw someone raise from
> the dead they wouldn't believe. So that is why winning the battle for
> science is a shallow victory. It is only winning the battle for truth that
> matters.

One does not prohibit the other, in other words, just because there is
a larger battle to be fought, does not make the smaller battle any
less relevant.
However, ignoring the negative effects of ID on faith and science is
something I refuse to ignore.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 21 20:50:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 20:50:32 EDT