RE: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Fri Apr 25 2008 - 11:58:34 EDT

How do mosquitoes fit in the design picture? Perfectly structured by
some disembodied spirit entity to spread disease. Maybe eliminating a
million African children a year is a good thing? I'll stick with
natural causation without divine interference, thank you. That way I
can swat them without feeling I'm squashing a divinely "designed"
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham <>
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Nucacids
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?
TE and ID are far apart when ID is proposed as a substitute for
However, both ID and evolution can co-exist, where evolution has, in
way, been shaped by design.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Blinne" <>
To: "David Opderbeck" <>
Cc: "asa" <>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:18 PM
Subject: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:52 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>> I really enjoy Stephen Barr's work and he's a very interesting guy.
>> Query though: is cosmological design really not a form of "ID"? It
>> seems to me that many people who find cosmological design arguments
>> potentially helpful are put off of biological design arguments
>> of the overstatement, politicization, etc. of the "ID movement" --
>> myself included. So making a distinction between cosmological and
>> biological ID is almost more of a necessary difference in politics,
>> style, and emphasis.
> Absolutely correct, David. I'll strengthen your point. Both are design

> arguments. They have the same form and have the same substance. In
> addition to that both have roughly the same concept of evolution.
> saying TE could be OK at the Messiah 2005 debate. Behe holds to
> descent and natural selection. The one difference on so- called random

> mutation could be lessened if ID understood what is meant by us by
> and by focusing on the non-randomness of the evolutionary process. By

> this I mean that evolution is random in the same sense that our
> are male or female randomly or to use the Biblical example the random
> shot that killed Ahab. I'll spare the rest of the rehash of concursus

> divinitatis. BTW, I liked your discussion on analogia entis but that
> proves that I am Reformed and George is Lutheran. :-)
> It seems to me that ID's problem is its own little form of scientism.
> Perhaps they cannot seem to identify the designer because of the
> that you as a lawyer have brought out previously. The other reason
that I
> have heard specifically stated is they think it makes them sound more

> reasonable when it does the exact opposite. I have absolutely no
> that my kind of ID is not scientific and that my intent is to provide

> evidence for the Christian God. Again, as you have noted earlier
> isn't more objective than other kinds of truth. It just uses a
> that deals with our inherent subjectivity by having the checks and
> balances of peer review and testing hypotheses physically. Thanks for
> heads up today on their journal which hasn't published anything in
> If the scientific elite truly were suppressing the truth or
> it into oblivion then this journal provides a way to get their
> research program out. But, there is no research program even though
> Philip Johnson promised not to move on to getting ID into the schools

> until they had real science to be taught. I believe -- correct me if
> am wrong -- that it should be able to be taught in a philosophy class
> the like in a survey style -- much like comparative religions. Now,
> seem to think that this is inferior or more likely they perceive that

> *we* think it is inferior. At least for me, this is not true. Just
> because I believe that ID is not science does not imply I believe ID
> not true (although some of the arguments are really, really bogus.)
> Furthermore, ID is better classified as philosophy anyway. What
> biological ID went through does serve as a cautionary tale for us when
> use a cosmological ID argument which in my opinion is the strongest
> in their quiver. Nevertheless, as George has noted the "many worlds"
> hypothesis for quantum physics and multiverses in general still are
> there as legitimate possibilities. Any of these arguments should be
> confirmatory rather than as a freestanding "proof".
> I really don't understand why we cannot talk about philosophy and
> theology. As your legal analysis has shown I see very little chance
> or "teaching the controversy", or whatever the strategy du jour is
> getting in the schools. Given that, why not show our colors? But,
> cannot happen as shown when both of us got booted from Uncommon
> Or, that theology was off the table at Messiah '05.
> I do have an idea for their research program. Show how the
> process is not random, not how it cannot happen. We can give them
> here. This could be like the '95 Behe/Miller debate in reverse where
> showed that Miller's textbook claimed purposeless evolution and
> knowing that evolution is not random in the popular sense fixed the
> error. It came back to bite him in the Dover trial where the old
> was being used and Miller pointed to the new version. If the heart of
> problem ID has is a random, purposeless, evolution, then we are here
> help show how current, mainstream, evolutionary theory shows
> It would require them to risk getting "expelled" by their YEC allies,

> though.
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 -
> Date: 4/24/2008 7:24 AM
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 25 12:00:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 25 2008 - 12:00:42 EDT