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

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Apr 25 2008 - 13:25:35 EDT

But then you have a God who isn't sovereign over His creation, which trades
a theodicy problem for an even bigger one.

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:

> 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" creature.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Nucacids
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:13 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> 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 evolution.
>
> However, both ID and evolution can co-exist, where evolution has, in some
>
> way, been shaped by design.
>
>
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
>
> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> 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 because
>
>
> >> 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. Dembski
>
>
> > saying TE could be OK at the Messiah 2005 debate. Behe holds to common
>
> > descent and natural selection. The one difference on so- called random
>
> > mutation could be lessened if ID understood what is meant by us by
> random
>
> > 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
> children
>
> > are male or female randomly or to use the Biblical example the random
> bow
>
> > 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
> just
>
> > 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 issues
>
>
> > 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
> problem
>
> > 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
> science
>
> > isn't more objective than other kinds of truth. It just uses a process
>
> > that deals with our inherent subjectivity by having the checks and
>
> > balances of peer review and testing hypotheses physically. Thanks for
> the
>
> > heads up today on their journal which hasn't published anything in
> years.
>
> > If the scientific elite truly were suppressing the truth or demarcating
>
>
> > it into oblivion then this journal provides a way to get their vaunted
>
> > 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 I
>
>
> > am wrong -- that it should be able to be taught in a philosophy class
> or
>
> > the like in a survey style -- much like comparative religions. Now,
> they
>
> > 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 is
>
>
> > 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 we
>
>
> > use a cosmological ID argument which in my opinion is the strongest arrow
>
>
> > in their quiver. Nevertheless, as George has noted the "many worlds"
>
> > hypothesis for quantum physics and multiverses in general still are out
>
>
> > there as legitimate possibilities. Any of these arguments should be
> more
>
> > 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 ID,
>
>
> > or "teaching the controversy", or whatever the strategy du jour is ever
>
>
> > getting in the schools. Given that, why not show our colors? But, this
>
> > cannot happen as shown when both of us got booted from Uncommon Descent.
>
>
> > Or, that theology was off the table at Messiah '05.
>
> >
>
> > I do have an idea for their research program. Show how the evolutionary
>
>
> > process is not random, not how it cannot happen. We can give them help
>
> > here. This could be like the '95 Behe/Miller debate in reverse where
> Behe
>
> > showed that Miller's textbook claimed purposeless evolution and Miller
>
> > 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
> version
>
> > was being used and Miller pointed to the new version. If the heart of
> the
>
> > problem ID has is a random, purposeless, evolution, then we are here to
>
>
> > help show how current, mainstream, evolutionary theory shows otherwise.
>
>
> > It would require them to risk getting "expelled" by their YEC allies,
>
> > though.
>
> >
>
> > Rich Blinne
>
> > Member ASA
>
> >
>
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu 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 -
> Release
>
> > Date: 4/24/2008 7:24 AM
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 25 13:27:14 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 25 2008 - 13:27:14 EDT