In a message dated 12/1/01 5:22:35 AM Mountain Standard Time, RDehaan237
writes:
> You asked, <<"Is the Sun "intelligently designed?">> Run it through the
> filter and it would probably be caught at the first node, and the decision
> would be that it is not considered to be designed.
>
FIrst, I want to acknowledge Bob's statement that he is not Bill Dembski, and
should not be expected to defend ID in detail. So I don't expect him to
reply to this.
I do, however, want to point out a consequence if Bob's use of the ID filters
above is correct. That would give us an object (the Sun) that the Bible
tells us God made, but that is not "intelligently designed." That would seem
to weaken any claim by ID to have theological or apologetic value.
I think the problem here is that, from a Christian viewpoint, *everything* is
intelligently designed (in the normal English sense of those words), because
God is the intelligent designer/creator of everything. So the ID movement is
using those words somehow differently. Since both levels of their "filter"
(regular events and chance) refer to *mechanisms* for things happening, I
think the difference must be that ID is a claim not just about design (in the
normal sense of planning and conceptualization) but also about the mechanism
by which the designed object or event is assembled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 11:59:47 EST