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

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
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
here:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200710/0053.html
(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 <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
wrote:

>
> 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 [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
> 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
> <collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
>
> From: Collin Brendemuehl <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
> Subject: [asa] What would evidence for design look
> like?
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> 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
> http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from
> real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu 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