Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

Dave,
    I think you're right that the ID folks don't usually claim to have a "proof." Nevertheless, replacing the term with a less exteme claim probably doesn't change the story very much from either side.

    The phrase that I've heard used by some ID advocates is the "best explanation" phrase rather than "proof." Most recently, I heard Bob Newman in a talk a few months ago use it. The notion is one that appeals to a lot of lay people. Evolution is one explanation for xyz and the design inference is another. Since evolution presents a process of such low probability, possibly as low as the limit of possibility, 10^-150, that Dembski derives, then the design inference is the best explanation. This plays well to the typical church audience. One of my problems with it is that it sets up the design inference as a competing alternative at the same level as a biological evolution explanation. For a MacKay fan like me, that doesn't play well.

    It seems to me that the ID community could thrive with a complementary approach whereby they can infer design as a complement to any and all explanations of natural phenomena. Our universe is spectacular and awe-inspiring, whether we can describe it's processes or not.

    Randy
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
  Cc: igd.strachan@gmail.com ; smsmith@usgs.gov ; asa@calvin.edu ; gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
  Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

  However, somewhere between these statements
  and rhetoric that comes out elsewhere, this is what they are insinuating
  they have in their hand. And so, to anyone watching such a confrontational
  style as often comes out, this sure looks like they are saying "this PROVES".

  Again, read Dembski's chapter on epistemic support that I referenced. I don't think there's any such "insinuation" at all. This seems like an unwarranted attribution of motive to me.

  Do other popularizers, including Johnson perhaps, insinuate and even state such things? Yes. But agree or disagree with Dembski and Behe, the notion that there's some sort of stealthy agenda to claim "proof" of God is unfair.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 23 18:42:32 2006