From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 13 2003 - 10:57:02 EDT
I don't agree that Dembski's ideas have all been shot full of holes. I
believe he is *correct* to argue that numerous scientific projects (such as
SETI, archaeology, and anthropology) *do* tacitly assume that we can detect
the products of a mind imposing a "design" on nature, as opposed to a
"blind" nature doing this itself.
The theological comments below are fine, but I am interested in seeing a
*scientific* or *philosophical* rebuttal to the line of argument indicated
above. It does seem to me, that the only reason why many scientists refuse
to acknowledge the *possibility* of detecting design in nature, is an a
priori bias against considering the reality of a mind that predates our
planet's existence. And we Christians know that such a mind does exist.
>>> Dick Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net> 10/13/03 10:30AM >>>
Ted Davis wrote:
>I'm glad Bill is doing this. He is IMO the most original and thoughtful
>advocate of ID. His educational background is broad and deep, his ideas
are
>interesting, and he knows as much about "information" as anyone I could
>name. I hope someone down there accepts this challenge, it would be a
nice
>opportunity for me (and others?) to see just how much water his bucket
holds
>when scientists take a hard look at it and try to shoot some holes in it.
There has been enough posted on this list to shoot myriad holes in Dembki's
bucket. By now, any of us could take Dembski's challenge just citing
archived material. My reservations are not confined to the scientific,
however, my concerns are theological.
ID mandates an intervening God, causing us to question why the Creator did
not intervene at other critical junctions. Humans, to name just one
species, suffer from over 3,000 genetic diseases from genetic defects. If
a creator is responsible for all the positive mutations throughout the
history of life on earth, what (or who) bears responsibility for the
genetic blunders resulting in genetic disorders? Promoting a creator who
pushes the throttle but sleeps at the switch serves no useful purpose, not
scientifically or theologically.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 13 2003 - 10:57:39 EDT