Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cornelius Hunter" <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

> George and Pim:
>
> George:
>
>
>>> You seem to be misunderstanding ID (Behe included). Behe does not
>>> require that we "subject God to scientific experiements." At least not
>>> that I am aware of. Perhaps you could provide more details on this.
>>
>> I really wonder if you are paying attention to what I write. I never
>> said that Behe required God to be subjected to scientific experiments
>
> Yes, I did read your post. You wrote that ID, as science, is objectionable
> because if God is an explicit part of the theory then that aspect of the
> theory can't be part of science since we can't
>
>> subject God to scientific experiements.
>
>
>> What I said was that Behe & other IDers think that God is needed to
>> explain certain phenomena,
>
> This probably makes no difference to your complaint, but Behe/ID does not
> say God is "needed," but rather that God designing certain structures is a
> very good inference to make. Minor difference, but perhaps important.
>
>
>> that he & other IDers want ID to be considered science, & that this would
>> require God - as an element of their scientific theory - to be the
>> subject of experiemnt & other tools of scientific analysis. They don't
>> realize this implication of their claims because they don't think
>> carefully about how divine action is to be understood in connection with
>> them.
>
> OK, thanks. I think I understand. I think this is a criticism ID is
> willing to live with (much more to say about that I'm sure...).

OK, we seem to be getting onto the same page. FWIW I don't own a copy of
_Darwin's Black Box_ & the library no longer has the copy of it that I read
when it 1st came out. Maybe they think it's no longer of current interest!
Thus I don't have the exact language that he uses. But anyway, to
summarize, -

If the inference (which you emphasize) of an intelligent designer takes the
form "natural selection & any other evolutionary theory that doesn't appeal
to a designer can't explain certain features so there must be a designer"
then the implication (whether made explicitly or not) is that appeal to a
designer is needed in order to explain those features.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun Oct 16 07:37:48 2005