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

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 21:18:44 EDT

>Dembski and Behe see design not in what these people call
>design but rather they see design in science's inability to explain.

I think they would be in good company then as this was exactly God's point
with Job and Jesus' point with many of His miracles.

>The question of 'design' is that there is a step from design to
>designer.

This is a dromedary digestion problem resulting from too much nuance and
spin mentioned earlier. God does not seem to share your view here because He
claims for Himself the title of Designer just from His Design being manifest
and the scriptures teach that this is the obvious and appropriate response,
even to the point of those that reject it being damned and without excuse.

> We humans are very well tuned to see design, likely an evolutionary
> adaptation, so why is us seeing appearances of design relevant?

Or maybe it is a "designed" trait like how the scriptures tell us that those
that believe will hear His voice and recognize spiritual truth.

>design cannot be rely on the belief of people but rather on what the
>evidence shows us.

I find this statement to be logically flawed. Again as in the case with Job,
God insisted on what little design that Job was able to comprehend then as
being proof of His handiwork, it wasn't subject to discussion of the
evidence. I think this is scientific hubris to tell God otherwise.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:50 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science
and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

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.

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 21:19:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 21:19:33 EDT