Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Michael Roberts
  Cc: Ted Davis ; dfsiemensjr@juno.com ; gmurphy@raex.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:34 AM
  Subject: Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

  On 5/22/05, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
    Ted
    These are very important points. The whole of idea of ID tends to limit
    design to certain things, thus Behe insisted that bloodclotting is designed
    and the transport of oxygen by haemoglobin is not and I developed the
    absurdity of that in my 1999 PSCF article.

  With all due respect, Michael, I think this is a straw-man argument. As I understand it, Behe is saying that in some cases you can detect design, and in some cases you can't detect it. That is clearly not the same as saying something is not designed - just that scientifically you can't say for sure.

  Rather than saying ID tends to limit design to certain things, it is more appropriate to say that it limits detectable design to certain things. We all as Christians believe that God designed the universe in a certain sense.

  I agree, however, that to limit detectable design to certain things, is to risk falling into the God of the Gaps type of argument.

  "Undetectable design" is undetectable because God has carried out that design through natural processes. Both good theology & good science then suggest that we continue to look for natural processes through which supposdly "detectable" design has been carried out. But IDers don't want to do that because they want the design to remain "detectable" - i.e., not explained scientifically.

  & by doing this they don't "risk" falling into a GoG view. They have not just fallen but have happily jumped into it.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun May 22 07:33:06 2005