Re: [asa] Behe on Darwin, design and teleology

From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 22 2009 - 08:38:22 EDT

Randy Isaac wrote:
> The issue that I see being debated is how those design elements are
> detected. Behe and company claim that the lack of a detailed causal
> mechanism in evolutionary development coupled with what they see as
> characteristics of "an intelligent agent" constitute evidence of
> design in an abstract sense, meaning there must be a designer.
Yes I think this would be the prime issue with many among the ID
leadership. I don't know how to get across to ID that many TEs (a grad
student in St Petersburg and some others excepted) think that the
proper scientific response to issues like those that Behe raises is "We
don't know". However, that does not mean that some of us do not accept
the reality or possibility of Design as part of our world view/religion.

We might also ask what would make IDers acceptable to TEs. To me the
biggest item would be to stop inferring that TEs as essentially
Darwinists with a thin veneer of theism. To put that another way not to
infer that TEs are metaphysical naturalists plus a little bit.

Quieting down the tone of some of the rhetoric on UcD would also help.
With some of the pro ID posters on UcD, one might ask who needs enemies.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 22 08:39:18 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 22 2009 - 08:39:18 EDT