I have allowed my computer to be idle for a few days. I now see scores of
messages re ID, In no way will I have the time to digest or respond to all
of this. So, let me go back to Bob Dehaan's message of July 1.
> Let me try once more to deal with your demand for a prior definition of
> design.
Let me try to clarify that request.
The typical claim of ID proponents is: "We have clear scientific evidence
that X was intelligently designed."
I respond by saying: "OK, but I cannot evaluate that claim until I know what
it means when you say that "X was intelligently designed." Two additional
comments apply:
(1) I am not necessarily looking for a tight, highly specific definition,
complete with details regarding what happened when. A great step forward
would be for them just to say whether ID was an act of Mind (say, in
conceptualizing something for the accomplishment of a purpose) or an act of
a "Hand" (say, in assembling something, or imposing a new form or structure
on extant materials).
(2) Neither am I expecting a definition on which all advocates will agree
unequivocally. I would be content to have each proponent of ID give his/her
own working definition. What I am asking for is candor and openness. Be
aware of your own working definitions, your own presuppositions, your own
goals, and be courageous enough to say what they are. Perhaps then a
taxonomy of differing meanings of ID could then formulated to assist all
participants in the ongoing evaluation of the various claims made under the
rubric of ID.
One of the features of the present ID literature that irritates me is its
studious avoidance of doing either (1) or (2). Both clarity and candor seem
strategically withheld (that is, ambiguity and obfuscation seem to be
intentional). That gives the ID program the appearance of being some sort of
propaganda blitz with a craftily hidden agenda. It could easily lead a
person to ask whether this strategy is substantially different from the
"scientific creationism" program with its claim to be a purely scientific
enterprise without a religious agenda. Is it the intent of the ID program to
suppress clarity and candor with regard to religious questions in order to
get ID into science classrooms? Is it the intent of the ID program to give
the appearance of having the support of a diversity of religious
perspectives in order to claim that it is not religiously motivated or
biased? Broadly, what do we learn about the ID movement by examining its
strategies?
Another feature of ID that is highly problematic to me as a Christian is its
requirement that we see things as the outcome of either "intelligent design"
or "natural causes." That effectively places the whole system of natural
processes outside of the category of "intelligently designed" phenomena, a
perspective that stands in profound contrast to the perspective of the
historic Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 09:35:32 EDT