Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

I still see some common confusions with what ID is and is not. Myth #
1 is not that ID is not science but rather that its foundation in
ignorance prevents it from making scientifically relevant
contributions.
The problem is that ID is not clear what 'design' means when in fact
it represents a lack of identifiable pathways for something to have
been 'created' by natural processes. In fact since intelligence is a
natural process, this seems to suggest that ID is indeed about the
supernatural. Worse, without any reason, the philosophical claim is
made that an intelligent agent is more plausible than other processes
in terms of chance (and regularity). Since we lack any estimates for
the probability of said intelligent agent, and since the concept of
agency is detached from the concept of design, such a philosophical
claim requires a bit more detail.
The claim that science need to limit itself to naturalistic mechanisms
conflates the meaning of the term 'intelligence' when in fact
intelligence can be seen as a naturalistic mechanism.

The closest ID comes to a scientific claim is stating that 'x' cannot
yet be explained by science. The rest is based on poor logic at best.

You see, the problem with ID is that it cannot compete with 'we don't
know' because it is based on our ignorance not our knowledge. After
all if it involved our knowledge then we could explain the 'designed
object' in terms of naturalistic processes. ID makes no arguments why
their explanation is more plausible, it's exactly this absence of a
relative measure which causes so much problems for ID

I appreciate the attempt even though it misunderstands much of
Intelligent Design's short comings.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@calvin.edu> wrote:
>
> Certain criticisms of Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution are
> frequently recycled. These criticisms arise from common
> over-simplifications and misunderstandings of I.D. and T.E. I've written
> the following in hopes it will promote more nuanced and accurate discussions
> of these views.
>
> Four Common Myths about Intelligent Design
> --Myth #1: Intelligent Design just isn't science.
> --Myth #2: Intelligent Design is a science stopper.
> --Myth #3: Intelligent Design is just creationism in disguise.
> --Myth #4: Intelligent Design has a theology of "god-of-the-gaps"
> and "episodic deism."
>
> Four Common Myths about Theistic Evolution
> --Myth #1: Theistic evolutionists don't confront atheism.
> --Myth #2: Theistic evolution is essentially deism; it doesn't have
> God acting as a creator in any meaningful sense.
> --Myth #3: Theistic Evolutionists embrace "methodological
> naturalism" in science because they don't believe in
> miracles (or are embarrassed about miracles).
> --Myth #4: Theistic Evolutionists support evolution because they are
> worried about their jobs or their scientific
> respectability.
>
>
> This is a lengthy document, so rather than send it to all by email,
> here is a link:
> http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/IDandTE_FourMyths.doc
> Feel free to repost parts of it to this list if you want to discuss
> specific parts.
>
>
> Loren Haarsma
>
> 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 Mon Jun 30 21:56:51 2008