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

Hi Bernie,

As one who speaks from an ID perspective, I think you make an excellent point. According to the Discovery Institute, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Now, I don't think there is such a thing as a "theory of intelligent design," but let's take this claim at face value. The natural next question to ask is this - "*What* features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection?" You can't know if there are "certain" features if you don't have specific features in mind. Once that question is answered, one would want to know how it was determined that these features are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. There must be some method.

But isn't this the problem? If there was a method that did deliver such results, then why hasn't anyone systematically employed the method to score reality. Has "ID theory" told us whether or not human beings are one of those designed features? Is there a pattern among the features scored as designed or not?

My own views begin with the speculation that the first life forms were designed and that this design has reverberated through evolution.

-Mike Gene

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dehler, Bernie
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:22 AM
  Subject: 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

    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 22:21:58 2008