Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:36:27 -0400 "Dick Fischer"
<dickfischer@earthlink.net> writes:

The problem lies in the word "design" which in addition to its Websters'
Unabridged definition has taken on a life of its own, thanks to the ID
movement. And so, those of us who believe profoundly in our Creator must
find words to describe what we believe and how we think He interacts with
nature without invoking the "d" word which has been preempted.

Also, the design advocates use examples favorable to their point of view.
 The flagellum is a nicely functioning piece of bacterial hardware, and
thus is cited as an example of God's handiwork, while the poor panda
wasn't gifted with a functioning conventional thumb, and was left to
fashion a wrist bone to enable him to strip bamboo leaves so he could
eat. Evolve or die.

For as many examples you can cite of what appears to be God actively at
work designing novel adaptive features for organisms, there are at least
as many examples of bad design and genetic blunders. Maybe the
Intelligent Designer was so busy working out the problems for one special
creature he didn't have time to devote attention to another creature.
And once a mistake occurs, apparently the "designer" is powerless to
change it.

The point is this: the whole ID premise is based upon citing successful
examples while ignoring the screw ups and what the implications may be.
ID is not a comprehensive theory that explains what we observe in nature.
It is simply a Pollyanna explanation for what it would be like if we
lived in a perfect world.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org

Let me come at this from a different angle. It has been said that a given
culture cannot distinguish between the technology of a sufficiently
advanced culture and magic. But what ID is claiming is that it is so
advanced that there is no technology so advanced that they will mistake
it for magic, but that they have discovered, through the application of
scientific methodology, either magic ( i.e., fiat creation) itself or the
equivalent of magic in designs that must be attributed either to deity or
to alien civilizations. If the rest of us were as bright as they, we'd
see it too.

Although Dick may be right that they cite only "positive instances,"
there is a semi-deistic justification for the things that go wrong--they
were introduced and allowed to run without constant supervision. This
would fit with his description of a designer so busy with one set of
problems that others went awry. But this does not match orthodox
Christian theology.
Dave
Received on Mon May 23 15:27:52 2005