On 6/3/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> Pim wrote:
>
> >
> > Neil DeGrasse Tyson stated is as follows
> >
> > <quote>...snip...
> >
> > Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a
> > philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on
> > the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to
> > a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the
> > source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We
> > know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what
> > mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global
> > warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still
> > call hurricanes "acts of God" are the people who write insurance
> > forms.
> > </quote>
> >
> > I think that very well summarizes ID.
> There is no single authoritative body that governs ID and determines what it
> is and what it isn't. As a result, there seems to be a myriad of definitions
Most seem to think that Behe and Dembski (and to a lesser extent
Johnson) have defined ID to be as DeGrasse describes it.
> and interpretations from all sides claiming what ID is and what it isn't.
> Neil's quote that Pim cites is a popular description of ID by many ID
> proponents. It is particularly stressed by opponents of ID since it's so
> easy and fun to dismiss. But we should be clear that this doesn't represent
> all, and certainly not the best, thinkers in ID land.
I would agree with that position, so the question is are there better
thinkers in ID land? Del?
> For these folks, ID is not at all a philosophy of ignorance nor based on
> what we don't understand. Rather it is a positive identification of patterns
> in nature that are indicative of design. As was noted in this list a few
What's the difference? What are positive patterns of design?
> weeks ago, Bill Dembski has said on more than one occasion that ID is not
> contraindicated even if evolution/common descent were true. This is at least
> in part due to this dual nature of ID. On one hand, some stress the
> incompleteness of evolution as an explanatory theory, and on the other some
> stress the telltale patterns that indicate design, whether evolution is a
> comprehensive theory or not.
>
> For us on this list, we should be much clearer about what ID is and what it
> isn't, or more accurately, what version of ID we're talking about.
The house and garden variety, I'd assume. Certainly the DI and its
'fellows' seem to have defined ID in a very particular manner.
It may be a good exercise to explore other ID concepts and how they
stand up as scientific alternatives or scientific extensions.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 3 22:58:22 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 03 2007 - 22:58:22 EDT