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

Thanks, Loren! As someone who is now more familiar with the "TE" side
by virtue of hanging out here more than elsewhere, I really found this
useful (and civil!) I've never felt qualified to look down my nose at
ID since I haven't read any of Dembski's seminal work. (Behe's Black
Box is my only acquaintance.)

I do have a question regarding the ID Myth #1 (which you address by
recognizing that we need to differentiate between the parts of ID that
are science and the parts that aren't.) Here is an excerpt of one part
you give as an example of where ID IS science.

    * /Scientific claim:/ It is extremely improbable that first life
      could have self-organized via known natural processes; it is
      extremely improbable that certain subsequent increases in
      biological complexity could have evolved via known natural processes.

Won't the ID detractors simply answer that the phrase "*known* natural
processes" (emphasis added) will become a crux of determination about
whether this is a scientific claim or not? I.e. Everybody would agree
that this is indeed science if the speaker is then willing to proceed by
saying, "Okay, so let's try to discover unknown processes that *would*
explain this." or "Let's keep working on how existing known
processes might explain it in ways we haven't yet understood."

But if we conclude that it is so improbable and MUST remain so, so that
we say an outside intelligent agency is therefore responsible, then
(even if we all agree to include this on the 'acceptable list') doesn't
this qualify as a science stopper? If not, where would science proceed
with that conclusion?

Please don't read any hostility in the above. This is a real and not a
rhetorical question. And since I have no axe to grind against ID per
se, I could actually accept that a "science stopper" is not inherently a
negative thing, as I don't regard science from an inflated perspective
of 'Scientism'. But having been immersed in (and become comfortable
with) the MN perspective articulated on this site, this question easily
surfaces to my mind and seems to remain a live challenge from the TE
toward the ID side. Can you elaborate on how science might proceed with
such a ID finding hypothetically accepted? I like your comparison of
such things as being "placeholders" in science. That is a helpful way
to view it -- and it does acknowledge a potentially temporary status
that invites more scrutiny.

--Merv

Loren Haarsma 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.
Received on Mon Jun 30 22:03:51 2008