Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

    Yesterday I returned from an absence (in reading posts on the list) and
discovered some questions about ASA and ID.
    Much confusion and miscomunication can be avoided if we define (and
consistenly acknowledge) three types of design. A designed feature
(object, situation, system, organism,...) can occur due to
    1A) design of a universe with "fine tuned" natural process so that some
(how much?) of what God wanted to occur would later occur by natural
process.
    1B) divine guidance of natural process, in "natural appearing"
design-directed action.
    2) empirically detectable "miraculous appearing" design-directed action.

    We could define "design" narrowly as design-directed action that is
empirically detectable (not by undirected natural process) and occurs
during history, so only #2 is design.
    If we define "DESIGN" broadly, all (1A, 1B, 2) are DESIGN.

    It might be useful to use "design" and "DESIGN" like this, or some
other system might be better in terms of clarity and likelihood of
widespread use.

    What about ASA and "design"? Some in ASA deny supernatural miraculous
divine design-action (one type of #2) while others think there is evidence
to support it, or at least raise serious questions. But everyone in ASA
believes in DESIGN because everyone accepts 1A, and 1B is accepted by many
TEs and (although its creative importance will vary in the views of
different people) by all OECs and YECs.

    Many recent posts recognize and emphasize these distinctions, and this
careful thinking will contribute to productive thinking and communicating.

Craig Rusbult
Received on Mon May 23 23:43:21 2005