RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Fri May 29 2009 - 15:47:20 EDT

Isnít Intelligent Design compatible with evolution essentially theistic evolution?

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac [randyisaac@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:22 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

And one more question that has puzzled me for a long time. If ID is indeed
fundamentally compatible with evolution, then why not drop the
anti-evolution aspect and focus on the ID part alone? If evolution turns out
to be incomplete, the scientists will work that out sooner or later. There's
no particular responsibility for the ID team to hasten it. Then we can all
join forces on the part that is most important to all of us. We can
certainly debate the scientific aspects of evolution but it need not be the
thorn in everyone's side. How does the ID argument run in the absence of
anti-evolution?

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

> Thank you, Cameron.
> May I just make a minor further clarification?
> I'm not "limiting "science" in the way that you do". I don't have the
> power or ability to limit science. It's just that design by an unknown
> agent or methodology cannot be done scientifically--no one has shown the
> ability to do so, no matter how much we may want to.
>
> May I also comment on of your statements to Terry? You quote Dembski,
> Behe, and others as saying that ID is not incompatible with evolution and
> that even if evolution were shown to be true, ID is still valid. I think
> that is certainly true of id but I have often asked for clarification of
> the compatibility of ID with evolution. If I understand all your comments
> as well as those of Dembski and Behe, the compatibility of ID with
> evolution depends critically on evolution being incomplete. That is, "we
> agree with everything except it cannot explain the details" or something
> along those lines. Let us suppose (I know you think it is a fantasy but
> let's pretend) that the evolutionary theory explains at every level of
> detail the development of all proteins. Would ID still be compatible with
> evolution in that scenario?
>
> Randy
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 29 15:48:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 29 2009 - 15:48:11 EDT