Re: "Design up to Scratch?"

From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 10:35:46 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "(no subject)"

    Howard-

    Before I read the PCSF article, I should directly mention that I do not
    charge you personally with this sort of double speak, yet I collectively
    find that the rhetoric of this listserve appears to be a kind of double
    speak in terms of Keith Miller's comments in light of the overall position
    that you outline. Indeed this response was directed toward Keith and I feel
    that his comments were using the "ignorance trump" excessively, not
    yourself. Please forgive any misdirected attacks at yourself.

    Josh

    >From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
    >To: Josh Bembenek <jbembe@hotmail.com>, asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: "Design up to Scratch?"
    >Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:39:15 -0400
    >
    >
    > >From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
    >
    > > Yet at the same time, Van Till has written explicitly that we should
    > > wait patiently for science to uncover the unknown physical laws that
    >will
    > > enable us to understand more completely how evolutionary processes
    >created
    > > biological systems without God's constant "tinkering" (i.e. non-embodied
    > > form-conferring interventive action.) Here we have a double-speak, on
    >one
    > > hand our efforts to view (excuse the sloppy label) Theistic Evolution as
    >a
    > > true and reliable theory partly involve future discovery of relevant
    > > physical laws/ processes that science will uncover. On the other hand,
    >we
    > > can dismiss arguments about the ability of natural systems operating
    >alone
    > > as inept for creating biological complexity because we cannot perform
    > > calculations and we don't know all the relevant factors involved, nor
    >might
    > > we be able to. Thus we are perfectly fit snuggly into our ignorance.
    >Our
    > > ignorance thus equally protects our inability to rigourously explain the
    > > ability of laws to produce biological systems while simultaneously
    > > preventing anyone from trying to argue that they are insufficient.
    > > Beautifully convenient, the ignorance trump card has become. In the
    >end, no
    > > matter how much we understand of the universe, there will be an unknown
    >and
    > > perhaps infinite degree of ignorance that we can appeal to for support
    >of
    > > our particular theory, even more wonderfully convenient!!
    >
    >Josh, I dislike double-speak as much as you do, and I do my best to avoid
    >it. Nonetheless, I presume that there is room for improvement. So, help me
    >out here. Please re-read my essay "Is the Creation a 'Right Stuff'
    >Universe?" in the December, 2002, issue of PSCF and find specific instances
    >in which I employ the kind of double-speak to which you refer in the above
    >posting.
    >
    >Howard Van Till

    _________________________________________________________________
    The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 13 2003 - 10:36:12 EDT