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

From: Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 16:40:38 EDT

I sympathize with both John and Pim and I am pleased that they appear to
be converging to some extent.
In my opinion it is a shame that the term "Intelligent Design" has been
taken over by the people associated with the Discovery Institute
(Johnson, Behe, Dembski., ...) I will call this DIID and distinguish
this from "intelligent design" (lower case id). I agree with Pim that
DIID is bad science (I would not use the word vacuous) and bad theology,
and when it is presented in antithesis to TE it deserves strong rebuke.
I see nothing wrong in Pim concentrating on this aspect in this forum.
At the same time, I agree with John that one can with good reason see
general intelligent design in God's creation. But God is the creator and
sustainer of all things, not just the one-time creator of a discrete set
of things like the flagellum of E. coli. It has been well said that DIID
is just punctuated deism.
Don

John Walley wrote:
> 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.
>

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 16:41:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 16:41:20 EDT