[asa] Re: ID-Pure&Applied:(was : Collins' book is reviewed by the Arizona Origins

*David can correctly say that PureID makes no distinction
between cosmology and biology.*
**
 I understand a critique of something like Dembski's theories on the basis
that there is no obvious basis for his probability calculations. But the
very same thing is true of cosmological design arguments, isn't it? Ask an
atheist what the probability is that a universe like the one we live in,
with its finely tuned constants, would arise by chance, and you'll get the
same answer: 1, because we're obviously here to observe it. Argue that the
probability of the finely tuned constants arising by chance couldn't have
been 1 a priori, and the atheist will say there's no basis for making that
determination. It's exactly the same kind of argument you're making against
Dembski.

*Since biology obviously post-dates cosmology,and since some features of
biology obviously postdate other features of biology, it is a reasonable
inference for Collins to make that *"ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy
Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies
of His own initial plan for generating the complexities of life"* .*
**
But again, exactly the same critique can be brought against TE. Not only do
some features of biology post-date others, but all features of biology in
all organisms alive today are derived from uncountable interventions, as
natural selection, mutation and genetic drift did their work over deep
time. If Collins' critique of the ID portrayal of God is right, then the
TE God is one who can never make up his mind, who never, ever thinks things
are quite right, who is having to intervene on a constant basis to fix a
creation that is still inadequate to this day -- or worse, who sadistically
enjoys messing around with everything he's made and watching the suffering
that results -- or even worse, who is both a bumbler and a sadist.

I'm convinced that critique of the TE God, raised by both atheists and YECs,
is dead wrong, once we understand God as eternally wise, sovereign, and in
control of a developing creation that turned out just as He had foreseen and
planned. But if I see the TE God this way, the same understanding of God's
eternal character, plans and wisdom applies to the ID God. In his haste to
bash ID, Collins has shot himself, and all of us, in the foot here, and has
given the atheists and YECs a card to play with against both TE and ID.

**

On 10/7/06, d.nield@auckland.ac.nz <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> David O's comments suggest to me that it would be useful to distiguish
> between Pure Intelligent Design theory and Applied Intelligent Design.
> PureID is akin to Pure Mathematics and is on par with philosophy. PureID
> is Dembski's design inference stuff. It involves probability arguments in
> a pure form. It says nothing about the identity of the designer nor the
> mode of dsign. David can correctly say that PureID makes no distinction
> between cosmology and biology.
> On the other hand AppliedID refers to attempts by Behe and others to apply
> PureID to the real world. They need to do this in order to claim that
> their ID is science. In my view they fail on two counts. Firs, they do not
> know and cannot know the a priori probabilities that are needed. Second,
> they are unable to say any thing about how and when the design is
> implemented.
> Since biology obviously post-dates cosmology,and since some features of
> biology obviously postdate other features of biology, it is a reasonable
> inference for Collins to make that *"ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy
> Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies
> of His own initial plan for generating the complexities of life"* .
> Collins is talking about AppliedID. ID applied to biology is indeed
> different form ID applied to cosmology. In my view, Collins is talking
> very good sense.
> Don N
>
> > I have no sympathy for the views of the Arizona YEC folks that kicked
> > off
> > this thread. However, I recently finished Collins' book, and I have
> > to say
> > I found it mostly disappointing. The story of his conversion to faith
> > certainly is inspiring, and it's refreshing to hear how this eminent
> > scientist's faith has reinforced his commitment to science. However, I
> > found the book jarringly disjointed in many respects.
> >
> > As the biggest example, Collins spends the first third of the book
> > arguing
> > that the fine tuning of the universe, along with the human moral sense,
> > strongly support a theistic perspective. In the second third of the
> > book,
> > however, he argues that any teleological or design arguments in
> > biology (i.e,
> > the arguments we label "ID"), are worthless "god of the gaps" arguments.
> >
> > Well, which is it? It seems to me that Collins' critics are right
> > here --
> > the "god of the gaps" objection applies with just as much force to
> > cosmological (fine tuning) and sociological (the moral sense)
> > arguments as
> > it does to biological ones. He never explains why there's any material
> > difference between cosmological and biological teleogy / design
> > arguments.
> >
> > Collins also, IMHO, misrepresents ID theory. Now, Collins may or may
> > not be
> > right about the ultimate merits of ID theory, and I'm not intending
> > to open
> > that can of worms. But statements like this -- *"ID portrays the
> > Almighty
> > as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the
> > inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexities of
> > life"* -- are bunk. Nothing I've read in the ID literature suggests any
> > such value judgments about the capabilities or purposes of the
> > designer. Even if we assume ID is really a religious theory about the
> > "Almighty," from a Christian theistic perspective, we'd say that if
> > God did
> > "intervene" in natural history, that intervention was perfectly good and
> > wise, fully in accordance with God's character, even if we don't know
> > the
> > ultimate reasons for that "intervention."
> >
> > <SNIP>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 8 20:53:38 2006