From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 09:12:51 EDT
>From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
> -Richard, the reason you have found no references to the C-12 argument, and
> why this conversation has generated such confusion for you is because the
> "critics" here are producing a strawman argument for discussion. None of
> the ID proponents ever alter the meaning of the term Intelligent Design,
> which Howard has argued.
Here's what I said in a recent post:
> In fact, that's the ID strategy for inanimate things like C-12. But to do
> that, however, they have to change the meaning of their key tern,
> "intelligent design." To put it as succinctly as possible, for inanimate
> things and fine-tuning the ID argument is, "If the RFEP is true, then the
> universe was 'intelligently designed' (meaning #1)." In the case of living
> organisms, however, the ID argument is just the opposite, "If the RFEP is
> false, then some living things must have been 'intelligently designed'
> (meaning #2)." Heads I win, tails you lose.
Here are the two differing meanings of "intelligent design" action:
Meaning #1: To say that the cosmologically fine-tuned universe was
"intelligently designed (1)" is to say that the universe that was given
being (from nothing) by a Creator was thoughtfully conceptualized --
purposefully planned so that it had precisely the right properties and
parameter values to produce elements, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. without
need for occasional form-conferring supernatural interventions in the course
of time.
ID evidence-counting strategy #1: The presence of cosmological fine tuning
is counted by ID advocates as evidence for the universe-initiating act of
"intelligent design (1)."
Meaning #2: To say that biotic system X was "intelligently designed (2)" is
to say that the universe's formational capabilities are not sufficient to
actualize X by natural means alone. The formational economy of the universe
lacks certain formational capabilities and must be supplemented by
occasional episodes of non-natural, form-conferring acts performed by an
unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent; these form-conferring acts
performed in the course of time are called acts of "intelligent design (2)."
ID evidence-counting strategy #2: The absence of biological fine tuning is
counted by ID advocates as evidence of the need for occasional acts of
"intelligent design (2)" that interrupt the normal flow of natural
processes.
Summary:
If RFEP holds for inanimate physical structures, then ID is true.
If RFEP does NOT hold for biotic systems, then ID is true
Heads I win, tails you lose.
> Intelligent Design always means something that has
> been generated by the creaturely capacities of an intelligent agent, not
> natural causes.
1. I don't think you meant to say "creaturely capacities" (the capacities of
a created entity) here.
2. Yes, I will grant that the two meanings of "Intelligent design" do share
the common element of being non-natural acts. However, the two kinds of
action are nonetheless radically different.
"Intelligent design (1) is the action of Mind in purposefully
conceptualizing the nature of the universe to be given being. Evidence for
this kind of action is the remarkable list of
physical/chemical/astronomical/geological things that the universe CAN do.
"Intelligent design (2)" is the hand-like action of assembling biotic
structures that the universe was not equipped -- by "intelligent design (1)"
action, presumably -- to accomplish. Evidence for this kind of action would
be a list of biological things that the universe CANNOT do.
Josh and Richard, you are welcome to hold to this dual approach if you like.
I do not.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 09:14:57 EDT