RE: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

Behe and Dembski don't merely see a purpose in the flagellum. They see irreducible complexity. I don't think you'll find Simon Conway Morris claiming to see irreducible complexity in the Cambrian fauna, for example.
 
Cheers.
 
Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Hixson-Lied Room 438
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
 
Phone: 402-280-2154
Fax: 402-280-5595
 
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
 
Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu <http://nrcse.creighton.edu/>
 
________________________________

From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:19 PM
To: Austerberry, Charles
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

And yet, Simon Conway Morris' ideas about convergent evolution in Life's Solution are teleological arguments that seem to suggest the same kind of engineer. How is seeing a purpose in convergent evolution all that much different than seeing a purpose in the flagellum?

 
On 10/24/06, Austerberry, Charles <cfauster@creighton.edu> wrote:

        In Simon Conway Morris' words:
        
        "In my opinion, ID is a false and misleading attraction. There would be little point in reiterating the many objections raised against ID, especially those made by the scientific colleagues, but opponents, of Michael Behe and Bill Dembski, its two principal proponents.
        
        Rather, ID has a more interesting failing, a theological failing. Consider a possible analogy, that of Gnosticism. Who knows where this claptrap come from, but it could have been an attempt to reconcile orphic and mithraic mysteries with a new, and, to many in the Ancient World, a very dangerous Christianity.
        
        So, too, in our culture, those given over to being worshippers of the machine and the computer model, those admirers of organised efficiency - they would not expect the Creator (that is, the one identified as the engineer of the bacterial flagellar motor, or whatever your favourite case study of ID might be) to be encumbered with the customary cliché of bearing a large white beard, but to be the very model of scientific efficiency, and so don a very large white coat. ID is surely the deist's option, and one that turns its back not only on the richness and beauty of creation, but, as importantly, on its limitless possibilities. It is a theology for control freaks.
        
        To question ID might generate a ripple of applause from neo-Darwinians, until they recall that theology is not a fad, a pastime for eccentrics, but central to our enterprise. Such an approach may not only be consistent with evolution, but can also resonate with orthodox Christian theology - the fall, the incarnation and the end times."
        
        
        http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/churchtimes/website/pages.nsf/httppublicpages/63693299A537AEDD80256FB2003650C7
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        
        Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:51:02 -0400
        From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com >
        Subject: Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments
        
        - ------=_Part_81_18398794.1161651062427
        Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
        Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
        Content-Disposition: inline
        
        *An argument for theism/design based on convergent evolution is simply a non
        sequiteur.*
        
        So you didn't like Simon Conway Morriss' recent book?
        
        
        
        
        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
        

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 24 18:25:43 2006