RE: [asa] ID question?

From: Bill Powers <>
Date: Fri Oct 16 2009 - 11:03:21 EDT

OK. Maybe I'm wrong. So I'll start again.

Maybe I'm using the wrong short handed term.

To guide something entails a guider. How that guiding is accomplished is
irrelevant, whether it be by fiat (special creation) or by using hammers
and nails (e.g., some evolutionary process).

So I don't intend by the word speciation to entail some form of process
whereby species are derived from other species, but merely to say that
species come to be.

ID doesn't care about, nor does it claim to detect, whether a species or
biological feature came to be by fiat or by some procedure. The important
issue is that a Guider was necessary. In the case of fiat I suppose one
says that the Guider is necessary and sufficient. In the case of some
temporal process employing material and the like, we might say the Guider
was necessary but not sufficient. Indeed, this is where ID is non-theist.
Were ID to entail a theistic God, then the Guider would always be
necessary and sufficient. Whereas, ID only entails that a Guider be
necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.

I hope this is more clear.


  On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Dehler,
Bernie wrote:

> Ted replied to Bill saying:
> "Thus, for my eyes and ears, Bill, you've drawn a distinction without a
> I had the same exact response. It is really perplexing. Bill what are you
trying to say? To us they sound exactly the same, so please define both terms
and point out where there is a difference. Otherwise, we're ships passing in
the night.
> RE: Bill said:
> "I think it a distinction between guided vs unguided speciation."
> What is guided speciation and unguided speciation? How are they different?
> Too me, "guided speciation" means God-guided evolution. "Unguided speciation
" means evolution in either an atheistic or 'fully-gifted' kind of manner.
Both are evolution. Both are against special creation as by fiat.
> I think you are representing Behe's muddle well. Maybe it is supposed to be
muddled? Is that part of the tactic? Is it a way to accept evolution (or be
open to it) while still opposing it? I'm just asking out of frustration with
the lack of clarity.
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Davis []
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 6:02 AM
> To: Bill Powers
> Cc: asa; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>>>> Bill Powers <> 10/16/2009 12:08 AM >>> said:
> Ted:
> I don't think I see ID as guided evolution vs unguided evolution. I
> think it a distinction between guided vs unguided speciation. In this
> way, if ID is a guided speciation, it could be compatible with special
> creation or TE, which I think it is.
> I don't see how the ID debate can be between evolution and special
> creation, unless you mean something more restrictive by evolution. ID is
> clearly compatible with either a special creation (meaning God directly
> intervenes in the creation to create each individual species) or evolution
> (entailing some form of descent with modification).
> In the latter case, descent with modification could be guided inasmuch
> as God is involved in some way.
> bill
> ***
> Ted replies. Bill, I don't see much of a difference between "evolution" and "speciation." Admittedly, I'm no biologist, but historically what excited/outraged/intrigued people about "evolution" was that Darwin claimed to provide a true theory of "speciation." He didn't use the word "evolution" at all in the first edition of the Origin, in fact -- however, he used the word "evolved" as the final word in the book.
> Thus, for my eyes and ears, Bill, you've drawn a distinction without a difference. In my mind, we agree. By "evolution" I mean simply descent with modification, or "speciation."
> Ted
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 16 11:03:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 16 2009 - 11:03:43 EDT