Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Mon Oct 20 2008 - 11:10:19 EDT

Tim wrote (in part):

"3. ID is not entirely anti-TE; that's why I'm here, to show that
there is an area of overlap. The two overlap where they agree that
there is real (not apparent) design in nature, that it may (not must)
be detectable scientifically, and that Darwinian mechanisms alone (or
more broadly, chance evolutionary mechanisms alone) could never have
produced complex integrated systems such as those possessed by living
beings. Any TE who agrees with these three propositions, and will
state them publically, regardless of how many important biology
professors are listening, is a friend and ally of ID. But we ID
people find many TE people rather elusive on the third point."

Tim - you are changing my perception (and perhaps acceptance) of ID.
With that in mind, and not claiming to have ever been a TE, the above
might be qualified.

Specifically -- the third claim, "that Darwinian mechanisms alone (or
more broadly, chance evolutionary mechanisms alone) could never have
produced complex integrated systems such as those possessed by living
beings." I'd have to qualify that sentance with a "perhaps not, "or a
"very probably not" in place of your "could never." Absolutes always
arouse the skeptic in me.

And, Tim, you also wrote" In the lifetime of the younger people
reading this, Darwinism will be openly criticized and even mocked on
university campuses, and design theory will be a recognized component
of biological studies, including evolution. And remember that you
heard it from Timaeus first."

No, I heard that many years ago, from one Phillip Johnson, at the
Austin conference on Feb 20-23, 1997. See my report of that excellent
conference, published in ORIGINS and DESIGN, at I challenged him on it when he said
the change would come quickly -- within a year or two. At that time I
was still studying the ID movement; I guess that process continues. I
really appreciate the efforts you are making here.

Randy Isaac recently carefully differentiated between and "id-ist" and
and "ID--ist." I am, scientifically, an "idist" and philosophically an
"ID-ist." Your arguments to me to embrace "ID-ism" scientifically are
good ones; I ma not there yet. But I am still a young man (77 this
summer) and be patient with me!


On 10/20/08, David Opderbeck <> wrote:
> Timaeus, there are many things you say in these responses that I agree
> with. But, again and again, you assume that "random" must mean "no God
> involved." Various people have tried from various angles to show that an
> event that appears stochastic to us does not exclude purposeful action by
> God -- e.g., the birth of a baby, the casting of lots. Several people have
> taken up the question of "causation" and notions such as primary and
> secondary causation. I haven't seen you address this at all, except to
> imply that TEs are using these ideas to avoid conflict with "prominent
> biologists." That's unfair.
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Ted Davis <> wrote:
>> This latest from Timaeus is evidence that he, too, has a life that can
>> interfere with internet posting. :-)
>> It has been frustrating to Timaeus, and somewhat also to me, to see some
>> of
>> the same old comments about ID on the current thread, "lock-picking
>> tools."
>> Culture wars is pervasive, and IMO some ID leaders themselves are partly
>> responsible for the fact that many conflate ID ideas with the larger ID
>> movement and its ties to forms of creationism.
>> Ted
>> =========

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 20 11:11:06 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 20 2008 - 11:11:06 EDT