Re: [asa] Conversation with Timaeus, part one

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Mon Sep 22 2008 - 17:36:01 EDT

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:35:54 -0400 "Ted Davis" <>
> In this very lengthy post, Timaeus identifies his or her own location
> on the conceptual landscape of ID and TE, expresses frustration
> about false stereotypes on both ends (with which I think many in the
> ASA will resonate), and then moves right into conversing with
> several people from the ASA list and others who have made specific
> points about ID vs TE.
I read through the entire first portion of Timaeus' post without finding
anything to disagree with except that he applies the label ID to his view
and I don't to mine. Seems to me that he is a TE/EC and doesn't recognize
it. I hold that all notions involving the deity and design are
philosophical. So I would like an explanation of how the ineffable is
detectable empirically. I know, it doesn't have to be the deity, but
everyone except some proponents who digs through the claims labels ID

I did not find the basic ID declaration that methodological naturalism is
metaphysical naturalism, which necessitates that every TE is an atheist.
This is where ID started. If Timaeus does not agree to the identity, I
think he is doing what the neoatheists are doing, but at the other end.

Finally, Timaeus notes that there are difficulties with neo-Darwinism.
How does that demonstrate that we need to make biology a study that
abjures naturalism? All honest approaches to science recognize that
theories are subject to change with new evidence, and that there are
matters we cannot yet explain. Why is "I don't know" to be superceded by
"An intelligence did it"?
Dave (ASA)
Comfort your feet with a new pair of slippers. Click here!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 22 17:40:22 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 22 2008 - 17:40:22 EDT