Re: [asa] What would evidence for design look like?

From: Christine Smith <>
Date: Sun Jul 06 2008 - 00:48:41 EDT

Hi Collin,

If you haven't already read it, you might be
interested in viewing my post from back in October '07
(for clarification, my post is really an exchange
between "abc", abc's responses to several other
responders, and me (faithcmbs9))

I don't think it really answers your question so much
as it analyzes the concept...may provide some food for
thought :)

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

--- Collin Brendemuehl <>

> I'm not up on the specifics of neo-ID so I simply
> picked Behe's principle for the purpose of beginning
> the discussion.
> At this point I'm not ready to employ an ontological
> argument.
> The more I read the less the simplicity of
> *everyone's* answers impresses me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Arago []
> Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 09:42 PM
> To: 'ASA', 'Collin Brendemuehl'
> Subject: Re: [asa] What would evidence for design
> look like?
> Do you mean 'evidence for design' in the eyes of the
> IDM or in a 'neutral' theory of intelligent design,
> something that might just better be called neo-ID?
> You might want to ask Mike Gene about this because
> he would certainly acknowledge and even he
> personally 'represents' a real difference between
> two positions.
> Well, o.k. then, evidence: first, language
> clarification. Graphic design, costume design, set
> design, interior design, design engineering, product
> design, etc. Is this the 'design' that you mean (in
> which case some is 'intelligent' and some is
> relatively less so)? Or would you disqualify this
> meaning of 'design' from your bid to find 'evidence'
> of any sort?
> Evidence for the 'design' noted above would be to
> ask the person(s) who made it. "Did you 'design'
> this?" If they answer "Yes," then you have
> 'evidence.' Of course, one must sometimes hold to a
> level of skepticism when taking a person's word for
> it. Maybe it was not he or she who 'really' did
> 'design' it, but someone else. In any case, if it
> can be somehow 'verified' that Person A 'designed'
> Object B, that qualifies as 'evidence,' doesn't it?
> That IS an 'end' that Collin asks for.
> The rest of the question I leave off (e.g.
> complexity and reducability-reductionism) until
> someone quickly points out that the 'designs' I
> suggest evidence for is NOT the 'designs' that
> 'they' - old ID - are offering evidence for.
> Nevertheless, 'evidence' has now been offered for 'a
> design theory' - i.e. the design of human-made
> things. This approach may turn out to be more
> significant than most natural scientists (e.g. those
> who suggest something can't be 'truly scientific'
> unless it postuates on the age of the earth!) have
> yet imagined, since they take something
> unquestionably 'more complex' (i.e. the human mind
> and human actions) to be a simple given all the
> while focussing only on natural-physical things.
> For love of wisdom,
> Gregory
> p.s. Pim's question is pretentious to say the least.
> It is based on vacuous reflexive thought about what
> it MEANS to design something. He ASS-U-MEs there IS
> no possible answer to his rhetorical question. So I
> care not to respond to him, but only to Collin, who
> would seemingly entertain the possibility of a
> legitimate answer.
> --- On Sun, 7/6/08, Collin Brendemuehl
> <> wrote:
> From: Collin Brendemuehl <>
> Subject: [asa] What would evidence for design look
> like?
> To: "ASA" <>
> Received: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:51 AM
> Pim asked a good question. "What would evidence for
> design look like?"
> So I'd like to propose this consideration:
> Behe would answer that design appears irreducibly
> complex.
> The problem is that, using model theory methods, any
> potentially irreducibly-complex component can simply
> be placed into a new model.
> And so it appears that the argument may never end.
> And that, it would seem, may represent a weakness in
> both ID/IC and Darwinian evolution.
> Why of ID/IC? Because they may never reach an end
> proof.
> Why of Darwinian ideas? Because more complex model
> would seem to require more time for each added
> complexity.
> Collin
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from
> real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 6 00:49:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 06 2008 - 00:49:10 EDT