In a message dated 11/29/01 4:07:08 AM Mountain Standard Time,
RDehaan237@aol.com writes:
> Intelligent design, as used by Bill Dembski and others does not imply
> non-natural implementation. ID is set over against _unintelligent design_.
>
> It is mostly those who oppose ID who imply that it is implemented in a
> non-natural manner.
>
Your statement is hard to maintain in the face of all the statements by ID
proponents that imply that "natural" processes don't "count" as acts of the
designer. By your statement, Howard's "functional integrity" view, where the
Designer gave his creation the capabilities to carry out his design without
non-natural interventions, would count as ID. Somehow, I don't think Dembski
and Johnson would see it that way.
Maybe we should return to the old questions which, as far as I know, the
major ID proponents have continued to dodge. Are carbon atoms "intelligently
designed?" Is the Sun "intelligently designed?" Is "Intelligent Design"
about design (no matter how the design is carried out), or is it about
mechanisms? ("Mind" or "Hand" in the terminology of the question Howard often
asks and the ID proponents never answer.) When I saw ID proponent John
Wiester speak, he said the key question was "mechanism, mechanism,
mechanism," with the clear message that if the mechanisms are natural, with
no explicit reference to God, that excludes the Designer. So at least that
ID advocate clearly does not view ID as your statement suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 29 2001 - 19:47:45 EST