Re: [asa] Providence and ID

From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Sep 18 2008 - 07:28:42 EDT

David Campbell wrote:
> Me: Obviously, this raises significant issues about defining "design"
>
I was not thinking so much about the definition of design and the
mechanics of detecting it but more about whether or not design was in
principle even allowed.
>
>> 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.
>
>
Dembski in "The Design Revolution" agrees that ID is compatible with
what he calls "pragmatic naturalism". As best I understand what he is
saying is that the reason he rejects methodological naturalism is that
holders of MN reject a priori the possibility of design, whereas PN
leaves the question of whether or not design has occured open to the
evidence. As best I can tell he is talking about design, beyond that
implied by lower case "id". Given George's discussion on providence,
which I agree with, it seems to me that the real argument is with the
methodology of detecting design and its definition and whether design
has been detected in the biological arena.

Dave W (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 18 07:29:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 18 2008 - 07:29:17 EDT