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

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 11:30:51 EDT

Pim,

Thanks for this final response and I apologize for the delay in getting back
to you with mine.

I have always conceded to you that most of your criticism of the scientific
claims of ID are valid but what puzzles me is what I contend to be the
inordinate focus and intensity level of your exchanges in this debate. I
have mentioned as examples in comparison the equally dubious scientific
claims of YEC as well as atheists but they escape your scathing rebukes
unlike the less fortunate ID'ers.

I don't know why you choose to fixate on this and deal with them so
mercilessly when the truth is under attack from many other fronts as well.
This is only one of the many land wars in Asia that those of us who defend
the truth have to enagage in.

As a result, I think this fixation distorts your perspective and judgment
and your otherwise keen intellect and causes you to go overboard on some of
your criticisms.

For instance, your statement below "What my objections are about is ID
pretending to be scientific and finding evidences of 'design' which are mere
placeholders for our ignorance ..." is an example. While I agree and have
conceded that ID trying to find design in biology is a two edged sword, you
yourself have also conceded that macro level design is obvious to all
Christians.

So then from this perspective I don't think it is necessarily fair to reduce
the temptation to call what we do see in biology design as being a
placeholder for ignorance. It is true that how all that works and how it
came to be remains an unknown and in that sense it does represent our
ignorance, but back to George's comment about the natural laws that
undergird these complex processes, I think it is fair and reasonable to
conclude that these at least are the results of design.

So while bacterial flagella or blood clotting may not themselves be
conclusive examples of design, the just so processes that brought this into
being should be. I feel this distinction is lost on you due to your
emotional prejudice and visceral reaction to anything ID.

So while Behe and Dembski cannot scientifically conclude that bacterial
flagella or malaria for that matter represent intentional design, I think
they are correct in inferring design from the sheer complexity of the
processes that produce these more subjective points that we debate, and I
contend that is design of the same macro level that you conceded to already
that is obvious to all Christians.

I think maybe the nuance of what they represent of being the product of
design as opposed to the overall process that leads to the product may be
where we are disconnecting with them.

I also agree with you that these are not trivial issues and that is why I
wanted to send this one last email to see if I could try one more time to
bridge this philosophical gap between us. Please let me know if you still
disagree with this further assessment.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:28 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS
Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

The argument with ID is based on its scientific claims, not on
biblical claims as most any Christians would logically accept an
Intelligent Designer.
What my objections are about is ID pretending to be scientific and
finding evidences of 'design' which are mere placeholders for our
ignorance making ID not just scientifically flawed but also infertile
and ID's risky theology of exposing faith to scientific disproof.
Imagine what a field day atheists will have when science unravels the
minor mystery of the evolution of the flagellum.

These are not minor issues but go to the heart of science and Christian
faith.

On 10/22/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that technically the arguments for Irreducible Complexity in
micro examples like bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms can be
debunked and may even be flawed and that may not be an accurate example of
ID and it may not be good science, but that does not invalidate the larger
macro examples of ID that we see in Rom. 20. That is what I am struggling
with. I think the truth lies in here somewhere between these extremes but I
have not been able to pinpoint exactly where yet.

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 Fri Oct 26 11:32:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 11:32:14 EDT