Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Jun 21 2009 - 19:21:22 EDT
Cameron Wybrow wrote:

Here is the problem that you TEs have created for yourselves.  In order to combat both Dawkins-Darwinism (atheism) and ID on the one hand, you've adopted the methodological/metaphysical naturalism division.  But while you can employ that against ID and atheism, it's powerless against YEC.  In fact, it's worse than powerless.  It positively enables YEC.  Once you've adopted that division, you *can't* say that YEC explanations are *wrong*, i.e., false to reality, unless you bring in metaphysical naturalism.  The *most* that you can say is that if a naturalistic explanation is available, it is to be preferred to the non-naturalistic one, because God generally seems to work through secondary causes.  But you are then *compelled*, by the terms of the division, to acknowledge that in any particular case (e.g., the creation of man), the naturalistic explanation may be the false one and the non-naturalistic explanation the true one.  So to fend off atheism and ID, you've empowered YEC, and you've cut off your nose to spite your face. Smooth move.

Cameron

I don't see how ID is much better.  They also reject metaphysical naturalism and have allowed "The Designer did it" to be a scientific explanation.  How do they differentiate between "The designer did it" and "I don't know" as far as science goes?  

Since ID also tells me that the designer is not necessarily God how does ID get out of the infinite regress in terms of the origin of life?  In fact it almost sounds to me like ID also uses the methodological naturalism rule when they say that the designer did it rather than God.

Personally I am not all that concerned with fending off ID people like Behe.  Sure I would rather he  kept his opinions on the  unevolveability of certain IC forms as part of his world view or metaphysics but it is not that big a deal.  However, I think he has done science a favor by raising the IC issue.  Having read his book I did not really understand the point he is raising about IC until you explained it in one of your notes.  Even co-option to make some more involved artifact is hard to explain in a gradualist approach unless the artifact being co-opted is very similar in structure to the new artifact.

Dave W








To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Sun Jun 21 19:23:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 21 2009 - 19:23:55 EDT