RE: [asa] ID- has nothing to do with God?

Hi Randy- I guess the devil is in the details. What, exactly, was
intelligently designed? If it was the transition form ape-like to man
(macro evolution), then yes, the creator must have been around recently.
But if it was creating the most basic cell, he could have left a long
time ago. If it is just some microbiological systems, I suppose the
designer was sticking around for quite some time. Good question- it
strikes at the heart of ID- exactly what was ID'ed and what wasn't?
Some believe that ID is necessary for the ape-like to man transition,
but ID'ers like Behe apparently don't see ID as a role for that-nature
can do that jump by itself. Probably most ID'ers in the public, against
evolution, against ape-like to man transition by evolution, think ID did
that change, since it is al about "the information" in DNA and
impossible to evolve itself.

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:46 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ID- has nothing to do with God?

As an example of that confusion, the recently published book
"Intelligent Design 101" contains chapters by various authors, one of
which is by Casey Luskin on "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." In
his conclusion he writes, "Many scientific organizations have rejected
intelligent design for political reasons by purposefully
mischaracterizing it as a supernatural explanation that is not testable.
The evidence briefly outlined here explains that intelligent design is a
testable scientific hypothesis based upon our understanding of the type
of information produced when intelligent agents act. Intelligent design
does not necessarily appeal to the supernatural, but rather appeals to
an explanatory cause with which we have much observational
experience--intelligence."

I may be missing something here. If this "intelligent agent" can be
either natural or supernatural, what is the case for the natural
version? Usually natural would mean operating through the weak, strong,
E&M, and gravitational forces. A natural intelligence means that some
intelligence must have been embodied in a physical form and able to
manipulate biochemical molecules on a nanotechnoloogy scale. And it
would have had to do so for the past 3.5 billion years and continue to
do so but without being detected other than by its end results. But
apparently, ruling out that possibility constitutes "political reasons
by purposefully mischaracterizing."

I believe it was in 1999 when Dembski published his book "Intelligent
Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology". By being a bridge I
suppose it can be either or neither or both, depending on the audience
and the situation.

Randy

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>

        Cc: asa@calvin.edu

        Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:27 PM

        Subject: [asa] ID- has nothing to do with God?

        The ID movement is confusing. They go out of their way to claim
it has nothing to do with religion... and now comes their conference on
theology! If they aren't a Christian group, how can they speak on
theology??? I think they lost their agenda... are they floundering now?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 21 10:23:13 2008