Re: [asa] Providence and ID

From: David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Sep 17 2008 - 19:44:14 EDT

> What then are the principle differences between Group B [EC accepting traditional categories of God's role in ordinary events] and ID? My view is that the main differences are:
> I. the assertion by ID that design is detectable. Whereas ECs tend to adopt a don't know answer when some feature of nature seems improbable but has obviously occurred eg OOL.

Me: Obviously, this raises significant issues about defining "design"
and "detection", also.

> II. methodological naturalism accepted by ECs and rejected by IDers

Me: I would argue that ID actually endorses methodological naturalism.
 It is in the explanations, not the methods, where ID wants to be
non-naturalistic. ID doesn't claim, e.g., "go meditate, and the truth
of design will be revealed to you". It claims that you can go out and
do regular science using natural methods and design just pops out of
doing that.

Although I would not rule out the possibility of that happening
(unlike some secular definitions of science, often made in response to
ID), I do not believe it likely on theological and on empirical
grounds, nor do I believe that the ID-proposed formulas like specified
complexity actually provide credible ways of identifying "design".

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 17 19:44:47 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 17 2008 - 19:44:47 EDT