In a message dated 5/2/01 10:18:52 AM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
<< This would have to be done non-defensively, with no
> preconception that ID did it all, or that evolution did it all.
Sorry, but I find this last statement very confusing. It sounds like things
are done _either_ by ID _or_ by evolution. Is that what you meant? Would it
be the case, then, that a designed universe would not be capable of
actualizing certain potential forms, or that a non-designed universe would
be capable of supporting evolution? >>
Howard,
Sorry for the confusion. I do not mean an either-or situation. Since I come
from a social science background, I am used to the idea of multiple
causation. Human behavior is rarely if ever caused by a single variable. To
tease out the differential contribution of various causal variables (assuming
correlation is indicative of causality) social scientists employ various
statistical procedures, such as analysis of variance.
I would like to see a similar approach used in biological studies where the
issue is natural selection or intelligent design. I think it is a
methodological mistake to assume at the outset that either process did it
all. Rather it is better to start with the assumption that both processes
were at work and then try to assess the differential contribution of each to
the phenomenon.
------------
Here is what Bill Dembski wrote in his forthcoming book, _No Free Lunch_
about the meaning of design;
"How a designer gets from thought to thing is, at
least in broad strokes, straightforward: (1) A
designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that
purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute
the plan, the designer specifies building materials
and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer
or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions
to the building materials. What emerges is a designed
object, and the designer is successful to the degree
that the object fulfills the designer's purpose. In
the case of human designers, this four-part design
process is uncontroversial. Baking a cake, driving a
car, embezzling funds, and building a supercomputer
each presuppose it. Not only do we repeatedly engage
in this four-part design process, but we've witnessed
other people engage in it countless times. Given a
sufficiently detailed causal history, we are able to
track this process from start to finish....
"Nevertheless, when it comes to living things, the
biological community holds that a very different type
of causal story is required. To be sure, the
biological community admits that biological systems
appear to be designed. For instance, Richard Dawkins
writes, "Biology is the study of complicated things
that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose." 1 Likewise, Francis Crick writes,
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what
they see was not designed, but rather evolved." 2 Or
consider the title of Renato Dulbecco's biology text
-- The Design of Life.3 The term "design" is
everywhere in the biological literature. Even so, its
use is carefully regulated. According to the
biological community the appearance of design in
biology is misleading. This is not to deny that
biology is filled with marvelous contrivances.
Biologists readily admit as much. Yet as far as the
biological community is concerned, living things are
not the result of the four-part design process
described above. "
Does this satisfy your desire for the leadership of ID to come forward and
declare whether design is just the creative thought, or the implementation of
it as well?
You wrote:
<<If the distinction between God's conceptualizing a Creation and God's
performance of form-imposing interventions is not made, then discussion of
divine creative action is, I believe, not likely to be fruitful. My
experience of being in the thick of the creation/evolution discussion for
the last two decades affirms this judgment.>>
Isn't that largely because you deny that "God's performance of form-imposing
interventions" ever occurred? Or do I misunderstand you at this point?
Regards,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 05 2001 - 06:13:18 EDT