Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2 from Timaeus: to David Opderbeck, with a Questionfor All

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 04:31:07 EDT

Hi Randy,

“For instance, the recent book “Intelligent Design 101” edited by H. Wayne
House
contains an appendix titled “A Reply to Francis Collins’s Darwinian
Arguments for Common Ancestry of Apes and Humans” by Casey Luskin and Logan
Paul Gage. This book, with its title and contributions/foreword from
Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Moreland, Richards, etc., appears to be a defining
work of what ID is. As policy folks at DI, Casey and Luskin are active in
portraying ID. By adding this appendix in such a defining book, they clearly
position ID as opposed to common descent. They address four different
aspects of Collins's argument. For example, referring to the discussion
about human chromosome 2, they state “At best, this evidence demonstrates
that humans and chimps share similar genetics—something we already knew
without evolutionary biology. Such similarities are just as easily explained
by common design.” In other words, they position common design as mutually
exclusive to common descent as explanations for having similar genetics.”

In other words, the Luskin/Gage version of ID denies the common ancestry of
humans and chimps. What we can conclude from this is that there are ID
creationists and ID evolutionists. While this is an interesting
sociological discussion, it’s not all that relevant. What would be relevant
is if you could cite an argument from Luskin/Gage that demonstrates
acceptance of intelligent design entails, and thus mandates, a denial of
common descent. Unless that argument is made, and defended, all we have is
the opinion and perspective of Luskin and Gage. That they are policy folks
at the DI makes the opinions flashy and sensational and certainly will stir
up the chatter. But I prefer to focus on the mundane logic of a position.

- Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2 from Timaeus: to David Opderbeck, with a
Questionfor All

> Timaeus wrote:
>
>> By “evolution” I mean a process which is alleged to have taken place,
>> during which or through which species turn into other species. In its
>> fullest modern form, it asserts that all living things, including man,
>> have descended genetically from very simple beings which first appeared
>> billions of years ago. I have already indicated that I provisionally
>> accept this process as a fact, and I’ve already implied that I don’t find
>> it spiritually shocking or revolting or automatically un-Christian, and
>> that it isn’t a bone of contention for me in relation to the claims of
>> theistic evolutionists.
>>
>> However, I must stress that by “evolution” I do not mean “Darwinism” or
>> “Darwinian evolution” or “neo-Darwinian evolution”, or “the theory of
>> evolution” (which usually means Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution).
>> “Evolution” to me is a label for a process, making no reference to any
>> causal explanation for the process...
>
>
> I'm glad you are taking the time to define your terms carefully. That is
> very helpful. Especially since it seems that you are using terms and
> phrases slightly differently than is usual, such as your definition of
> "evolution."
>
> I would also suggest that your usage of "common descent" is slightly
> different which may differentiate your views from the mainstream ID. For
> instance, the recent book “Intelligent Design 101” edited by H. Wayne
> House contains an appendix titled “A Reply to Francis Collins’s Darwinian
> Arguments for Common Ancestry of Apes and Humans” by Casey Luskin and
> Logan Paul Gage. This book, with its title and contributions/foreword from
> Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Moreland, Richards, etc., appears to be a defining
> work of what ID is. As policy folks at DI, Casey and Luskin are active in
> portraying ID. By adding this appendix in such a defining book, they
> clearly position ID as opposed to common descent. They address four
> different aspects of Collins's argument. For example, referring to the
> discussion about human chromosome 2, they state “At best, this evidence
> demonstrates that humans and chimps share similar genetics—something we
> already knew without evolutionary biology. Such similarities are just as
> easily explained by common design.” In other words, they position common
> design as mutually exclusive to common descent as explanations for having
> similar genetics.
>
> Your definition of common descent rather deftly allows you to use it on
> one hand to claim you have no problem with common descent. On the other,
> you can also leave the door open for unexplained phenomena in the process
> of "descent." Similarly, with a careful definition of "evolution," you can
> claim no "bone of contention" with it while also leaving the door open for
> mechanisms beyond natural explanation. The key seems to be what you mean
> by "descended genetically." Do I gather correctly that you mean "duirng
> reproduction, genetic inheritance generally follows anticipated patterns
> but occasionally there are unusual events for which there are no natural
> causal explanations?" This way you seem to be able to have it both ways.
>
> Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 29 04:31:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 29 2008 - 04:31:48 EDT