Re: Adkins-Luskin exchange in American Chronicle

Austerberry, Charles wrote:

>
>
> _Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from ..._
> <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4780>
>
> (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4780)
>
> _Intelligent Design Not Disingenuous_
> <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4900>
>
> (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4900)
>
> _Intelligent Design Proponents Are Disingenuous_
> <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4924>
>
> (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4924)
>
> Where I disagree with Luskin is in whether one can apply the same
> methods used to detect human-created designs to the detection of
> designs created by a designer whose species is not only unidentified,
> but potentially divine (and therefore possibly infinite, omniscient,
> omnipotent, and thus untestable). Also, I simply disagree with
> Luskin's claim that what we see when we look at DNA and cells is so
> similar to computer code and nanotech machines. Yes, the analogies
> drawn between natural things and human-created things are
> illuminating, but they are still merely analogies. If one really gets
> into the biological details, the evidence for evolution is
> overwhelming, but the "evidence" is equivocal (at best) regarding design.
>
> Where I disagree with Adkins is in chiding Luskin for claiming that
> his religious views and scientific views are separate issues. In my
> opinion, distinctions between the two can and should be made, so I
> don't fault Luskin for doing so.
>
Is red light different from blue light? Yes.
Is red light fundamentally different from blue light? No.
Is Intelligent Design different from Creationism? Luskin can with some
justification say yes.
Is Intelligent Design fundamentally different from Creationism? Adkins
can with some justification say no.
Does the distinction matter much? In the USA the answer is yes. The
distinction is critical because of the constitutional issue. In NZ the
answer is no.
I can understand why the Discovery Institute people argue as they do,
but in my opinion their argument is fundamentally flawed. I have read
Judge Jones' opinion in full and I think that he is right on the ball,
and in my opinion Ted Davis's assessment of that matter in this forum is
sound.

-
Received on Wed Jan 18 16:30:59 2006