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

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 19:20:00 EDT

Hi Dick-


 There's a much worse critter than mosquitoes... humans, and built "in
the image of God" at that. That is in reference to the human history of



From: [] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?


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 Sat Apr 26 19:21:15 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 26 2008 - 19:21:15 EDT