Re: [asa] STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY IOWA STATE

On 6/9/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Phil, I'm not sure I understand your comment correctly. Are you suggesting
> that a supernatural intelligent designer would be so wise as to be able to
> communicate the message of his existence and his character to us in a way
> that we could all understand, without any a priori knowledge of a special
> language of the communication?

Would it be impossible to envision a supernatural designer who can in
fact forsee what language will arise? In other words, can we limit
such a designer to not be able to do this?

> Let's take that further. Such communication
> would then not be in a modern alphabet or a classical or romantic language.

Well, the DNA alphabet is quite a bit different but it may involve a
mapping from the 4 bases to some form of an alphabet.

> Too many people don't speak English or Latin. Nor would it be in ancient
> Hebrew or gematria where only mathematicians would perceive it. Nor in DNA
> where only biochemists could sense it. What other method is there but for
> that agent to become incarnate in his own creation, becoming a human that
> all flesh can perceive, enduring temptation and suffering to the point of
> death on the cross, and overcoming death through resurrection?

We're getting a bit away from detecting design. Was it not us humans
who are hoping to communicate with extraterrestrials via a plaque?
Surely a supernatural designer can be far more inventive that us poor
humans? Or perhaps not? So how do we determine the intentions,
capabilities, limitations of said designer?

That's why ID fails so miserably. Seems that even the most
straightforward message 'made by God' would seem to be suspect. So
what hope is there for ID, I wonder?
> If that's what you mean, I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> Phil wrote:
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> you wrote,
>
> > How would you recognize the language, or coding, unless you had prior
> knowledge
> > of the designer and his codebook?
>
> But to the contrary, how can you say that we cannot recognize the language,
> or coding, unless you have prior knowledge of the designer and his codebook?
> Understanding him is always a possibility.
>
> One obvious fact is that we wouldn't need to understand a designer's native
> language or coding as long as he understands ours and intends to communicate
> with us. In fact, a lack of a priori knowledge should actually lead us to
> the opposite conclusion: if we lack a priori knowledge about him then that
> alone prohibits us from saying what he can or cannot do. Thus it is
> logically impossible to say that he cannot make his designs recognizable to
> us when we lack a priori knowledge. So this particular argument against ID
> is a self-defeating argument.
>
> Furthermore, the DNA thing was just a silly example intended to illustrate
> the point. It's easy to think of many other examples that involve smaller
> levels of "coding" (or none at all) and yet clearly point to the action of
> an intelligence without any a priori knowledge of the being's motives or
> abilities. I stand by this because it is easy to think of examples.
>
> To balance what I am saying, I want to agree with what Wayne has just
> posted: it makes no sense for God to put His messages where only the wise
> can see them (as in DNA codes), well hidden from the babes, because in the
> Bible God has promised exactly the opposite. Hence, I see the IDM as being
> contrary to the Bible.
>
> Again, I'm not saying that ID has found proof of intelligence via their
> methods, only that our argument amounts to limiting the abilities of an
> unknown intelligence and therefore it is we, not the IDers, who are being
> illogical.
>
> Phil
>
> ________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
> AOL at AOL.com.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 10 01:18:09 2007