Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

*If ID wants to argue that it can successfully detect design using ID,
then the conclusion should be that the designer was designer or arose
under the natural processes of chance and regularity.*

This is nonsensical. If the designer is God, the designer himself is beyond
science, but the fact that he poured himself into a design might not be.

*Of course, the best solution to this would be to drop the ID argument
> as being scientifically relevant otherwise one may have little choice
> but to accept Dawkin's stunning reversal.
*
Dawkins' "stunning reversal" is a moronic schoolboy's trick. He needs to
read some serious theology before he starts opinion about a concept of God
he clearly doesn't understand.

And in any event, it's ludicrous to portray what Dawkins is doing as some
sort of noble crusade against ID. He's not interested in undermining ID, he
is viciously attacking religion qua religion -- ID, TE, or whatever.
Dawkins is a bigot, plain and simple.

On 3/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> So if God is a definition then I'd agree that He is beyond the scope
> of science. However, when applying the 'logic' of the ID inference,
> one can indeed reach a contradiction. That such a contradiction can be
> resolved by arguing that God is outside nature, a first mover does
> little to undermine Dawkin's argument.
> If ID wants to argue that it can successfully detect design using ID,
> then the conclusion should be that the designer was designer or arose
> under the natural processes of chance and regularity.
>
> Remember that according to ID a system of high (specified) complexity
> requires a designer.
>
> Of course, the best solution to this would be to drop the ID argument
> as being scientifically relevant otherwise one may have little choice
> but to accept Dawkin's stunning reversal.
>
> On 3/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > because it turns the ID approach around and it
> > is used against ID's premise to show that the designer needs to either
> > have evolved or either it is too improbable. But if it is improbable
> > then the designer needs to have been designed.
> >
> > All of which is of course ridiculous because by definition God is a
given, a
> > first cause, an unmoved mover, etc. Dawkins' coup de grace is just a
> > metaphysical assertion that complex information must always arise from
> > simpler information. He conceives of God as part of some sort of
natural
> > system that can't begin with highly complex information, and then he
happily
> > knocks down that straw man.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dawkin's assertion that the question of God is a scientific question
> > > is particularly ironic because it turns the ID approach around and it
> > > is used against ID's premise to show that the designer needs to either
> > > have evolved or either it is too improbable. But if it is improbable
> > > then the designer needs to have been designed.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/29/07, Hofmann, Jim < jhofmann@exchange.fullerton.edu> wrote:
> > > > I just listened to both these interviews and I heartedly recommend
them
> > as well worth the listening time. I think Collins was particularly
> > articulate on the issue of what theism or religion broadly construed
adds to
> > scientific descriptions and explanations of the history of life. Dawkins
> > wonders why anything other than scientific explanation should be sought
> > except for emotional consolatory reasons. Collins quite appropriately
> > responds by citing issues such as life's meaning and purpose as ones
that
> > are not addressed by science.
> > > >
> > > > I had to chuckle at Dawkins' assertion that God's existence is a
> > scientific question. I wish I had the time and ability to write an
imaginary
> > dramatic encouter between Aquinas and Dawkins on this issue.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Hofmann
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Rich Blinne
> > > > Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 9:25 AM
> > > > To: Ted Davis
> > > > Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview
program
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fresh Air has a podcast where you can download the Dawkins interview
and
> > the Collins interview later today.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=7060034
> > > >
> > > > On 3/29/07, Ted Davis < TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I just learned, Richard Dawkins was interviewed yesterday
on
> > the NPR
> > > > program, "Fresh Air." This can be downloaded today (I don't
> > know how long
> > > > it remains available) at
> > > >
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13
> > > >
> > > > Today's program, broadcast at 3 pm by many NPR stations,
will
> > feature
> > > > Francis Collins.
> > > >
> > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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 Fri Mar 30 23:16:29 2007