RES: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

From: Marcio Pie <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 10:38:36 EST

You have to notice the way the problem was proposed. The debate question was
"Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (so, there isn't a discussion about atheism
vs theism). Both sides have to present their case. Regardlesss of WLC, Ayala
wasn't able to make the case that it isn't. That doesn't mean that Craig's
arguments couldn't be refuted. Rather, Ayala didn't make an effort to
understand the argument from the other side so that it could be properly
De: [] Em nome
de John Walley
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 12 de novembro de 2009 13:06
Para: Thomas Pearson; AmericanScientificAffiliation
Assunto: Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
Yes, just like YEC. If you can't show specific mutuational pathways to
explain all the history of life then you forfeit the argument and we win by
default. That proves God did it. I think this is a valid argument on
complexity but only from a philosophical or theological point of view. And
on this point WLC and Ayala don't disagree. So what are they debating?
WLC inisists on enforcing the ID party line which is that design should be
scientifically detactable and his inferences are scientific and therefore
atheism is falsified. What is missing from this argument is that maybe God
did it but not being scientifically detectable so as to intentionally give
atheists cover for their unbelief.
WLC said he heard Ayala disparaging ID and he wanted to defend it so therein
lies the debate. WLC assumes like ID and RTB that if God did it, He left His
fingerprints on it and we can sleuth Him out and prove Him. He is not open
to the fact that maybe God hid Himself in His creation so that it takes
faith to find him which is more consistent with how He revealed Himself in
the incarnation.
Again this is not something we should be fighting over.


From: Thomas Pearson <>
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation <>
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 9:46:14 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
On Thursday, November 12, John Walley reported the following quote from
William Lane Craig:
>>>First, I argued that Ayala fails to disqualify ID scientifically because
he cannot show that the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural
selection are capable of producing the sort of biological complexity we see
on earth.<<<
Do proponents of ID routinely argue that if Darwinian mechanisms of RM and
NS are inadequate as explanations, that constitutes a failure to disqualify
ID scientifically? Does that mean ID automatically becomes the default
position if doubts are cast on Darwinian accounts of evolution? It seems
like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing here?
Tom Pearson
Thomas D. Pearson
Department of History & Philosophy
The University of Texas-Pan American
Edinburg, Texas

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 10:38:56 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 10:38:56 EST