Re: >What does ID mean?
David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:39:38 -0400> But the
>argumentation of the ID proponents centers mostly on the claim that
>bioform
>X or biosystem Y could not have been assembled for the first time
>without
>the form-imposing action of a dextrous, craftsman-type agent.
>
>[EGM: I don't know about "centers mostly", that may be the case today
>as the group or movement takes shape and because of Behe's book's
>popularity. At any rate, given that you recognize the prior action of
>a creative mind wholeheartedly (I don't doubt you on this at all),
>isn't it possible that one particular (no the only) way that the
>creative mind could have expressed His creativity was by assembling
>bioform
>X or biosystem Y for the first time by exercising His form-imposing
>action as a dextrous, craftsman-type agent? Why limit the action of
>this omnipotent creator to one way or another?]
The current emphasis of "intelligent design" does seem to me to be strongly
centered on claims that the Designer has acted in a craftsman-type manner.
This limits the action of the creator to one way. It also assumes that no
one will discover evidence for a more extensive use of "means" in creating
it [to use the wording of the Westminister Confession], whereas the current
trend is discovering more of the means. To me, both the pattern of God's
action in nature (from the Bible and more recent observations) and the
available information from paleontology and molecular systematics suggest a
very minor role, if any, for direct craftsman-like action that does not use
the means of natural laws.
David Campbell