From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 09:06:30 EDT
>From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Perhaps someone can answer a simple question. Intelligence in humans,
> based on consciousness and rationality, is not part of the physical
> universe and cannot be derived from scientific theories. Therefore, if
> such is needed in order to do unadulterated science, then whence does
> that intelligence come from? Isn't this the reason for supposing the
> existence of a being which is infinitely, compared to humans, more
> conscious and rational? Isn't that what ID is all about?
No, that is not what the ID movement (as defined by the writings of Dembski,
Johnson, et al) is about. 1) ID claims to be based purely on empirical
evidence. 2) ID appeals to empirical evidence to support claims that
particular biotic structures/systems could not have been formed by the joint
effect of all known and unknown natural causes. 3) ID then posits
"intelligent design" as the means of actualizing (forming, assembling,
fabricating) particular biotic structures/systems that the set of natural
causes is, by ID's measure, ill-equipped to actualize. 4) ID's concept of
"intelligent design" action (especially as found in Dembski's writing) is an
episode of non-natural, form-imposing intervention by an unidentified,
unembodied, intelligent (choice-making) agent who need not be God.
If you care to do the homework, read the exchange between myself and Dembski
on the AAAS web site. Go to http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/ and click on
"Van Till and Dembski on Intelligent Design." Reading this is not a quick
and simple exercise. Coming to understand what working concepts lie behind
ID rhetoric and its highly unconventional use of key terms has taken me
years of effort.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 09:10:23 EDT