[asa] Easter Island WAS Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

Pim,

Granted there may be some technical distinctions between Easter Island and
the cosmological constants because one can be described through known
natural designers while the other can't, but I contend this a distinction
without a difference.

For you scientists this may be a big deal but to the average objective
observer, the take away is the same, it is too coincidental to be explained
without inferring intention.

This is where I depart from science in my theology and I think this is
counterproductive to press the scientific analysis too far like the water
into wine and the resurrection. You could make the same case that those
events were not scientifically verified either but it is over-analysis if
you accept the faith. Some help from Mike and others about reason not
trumping faith would be appropriate here.

Likewise I think the prima facie implications of a finely tuned universe are
meant to stand on their own and to the average person (consumers of ID) they
do. Further as I have mentioned before, it is ironic that many non-Christian
scientists like Hoyle, Rees, Davies etc accept these finely tuned parameters
as indicative of design so it curious why so many Christians feel compelled
to overturn them.

Keep in mind I am only trying to defend the generic design inference or the
"weak ID" argument, not the anti-evolution and special creation components
of ID.

As far as biology, I think we have same designer implying evidence in that
scientific record as well just like we do in physics. We have covered that
here extensively although unceremoniously in the analogy of Gould's hallway
that constrains the staggering drunk to make forward progress. Once again,
that is from secular non-Christian scientists so that is hardly a
religiously motivated contrivance.

From my layman's analysis, I think if ID had been defined in these more
general and less over reaching terms from the beginning it would have been
more defendable and a generally valid theory.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:48 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

For the benefit of those who are less familiar with how these so
called examples of design have no relevance to ID, let me see if I can
get John to answer some questions.

1. How do you think design is inferred in case of Mount Rushmore and
Easter Island?
2. How do you think design can be inferred in case of the Universe,
certainly you cannot rely on ID's approaches of elimination of
regularity and chance so perhaps you can show us how to apply the
approaches you propose in 1 can be helpful.

It's time to take these hand waving 'arguments' and see if we can get
something more scientific out of them. Are you interested?

On Dec 8, 2007 8:34 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is that the best you can offer? I am amazed that with all the noise,
> ID has nothing to offer in the area of evolution?
>
> Surely you do understand the difference between regular and rarefied
design?
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 8:06 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What about the Mt. Rushmore and Easter Island arguments? Who denies that
> > those were not the product of intelligent design? When you see a
universe
> > constructed just so, it is rational to conclude the same about it.
> >
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Randy Isaac
> > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 10:30 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have encouraged my ID friends, who keep saying that ID is not a
negative
> > approach but a positive indicator of design, to really pursue that
> > direction. I have urged them to identify a specific example that is not
> > negative or anti-evolution but is nevertheless a positive indication of
an
> > intelligent design in their opinion. I'm still waiting. Perhaps you
could
> > help provide one?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > P.S. Hint: I do have a list of candidates in mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >
> > From: John Walley
> >
> >
> > To: 'Dehler, Bernie'
> >
> >
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> >
> >
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:18 PM
> >
> >
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!!! This nails it for me. The problem with ID is that instead of
> > being just pro-design, they went negative and anti-evolution.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...
>

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 Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:46:18 -0500