Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

Your version of ID however is somewhat at odds with how ID is commonly
applied and we run the risk of conflating the two concepts. ID as
proposed by the mainstream is not about a police investigation, no eye
witnesses, no physical evidence, no motives means and opportunities.

So perhaps the problem is the confusion caused by ID proponents as to
what its claims are and how it compares to how science deals with
intelligent causation, and we conclude how ID is meant not to
represent the latter but rather provide a way to detect supernatural
design. Somehow, ID proponents have since been forced to include
intelligence as super natural or non naturalistic, but that only makes
their arguments even less relevant.

We do not even see an equivalent of a line up where we allow a closest
match, a best match. So I am not sure where you are going with this as
it seems to not represent with much accuracy what ID is all about.

As to ID not being religious, I disagree, ID has chosen a form of
'design' which not only has rendered it scientifically without content
but also involving the supernatural, by virtue of design being the set
theoretic complement of regularity and chance, or that which remains
when natural processes have been eliminated. But what does remain when
natural processes have been eliminated? Either the supernatural, or
our ignorance or perhaps an empty set?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> I have always maintained that ID is not science. Yet there is a flip-side to
> this coin: I have also maintained that ID is not religion. Ironically, while
> many on the ID side are uncomfortable with the "ID is not science" position
> and comfortable with the "ID is not religion" position, there appears to be
> perfect symmetry when it comes to the critics, who are uncomfortable with
> the "ID is not religion" position and comfortable with the "ID is not
> science" position. Just another example of yin-yang.
>
>
>
> I have previously fleshed out different aspects of my views/approach:
>
>
>
> -It is more like a police investigation than either religion or science.
>
> -As an investigation, it allows room for subjectivity and different levels
> of evidence.
>
> -It begins with a question.
>
> -It represents a Fifth Way of viewing things.
>
> (links provided upon request)
>
>
>
> To this, I'll now add the relationship between theology/religion and my
> views about ID.
>
>
>
> I am a theist and my theism allows me many options when it comes to the
> immensely ambiguous topic of the origin of life on this planet.
>
>
>
> 1. God did not use natural causes but instead brought life into existence in
> a way that we cannot comprehend.
>
>
>
> 2. God used other intelligent agents to design life.
>
>
>
> 3. God used natural laws/chance by front-loading the appearance of life with
> the creation of the Universe.
>
>
>
> 4. God used natural law/chance by bringing this Universe into existence
> among an infinite set of possible Universes.
>
>
>
> My ID views do not stem from a theological viewpoint (for the record, my
> theological leaning is for option #4) or any sophisticated philosophical
> analysis. They stem from my raw experience and awareness:
>
>
>
> 1. I experience reality as both objective and subjective. While my
> subjective reality is mostly hidden from objective reality, it is not hidden
> from me; it is as real.
>
>
>
> 2. I know there are things that exist in the objective world only because I
> brought them into existence. I conceived them and then used my hands to
> translate a mental reality into a physical reality. Aspects of my subjective
> reality become part of the objective reality of others.
>
>
>
> 3. The objective reality around me also contains things that exist only
> because other fellow humans conceived them and then brought them into
> existence. Their subjective reality has become part of my objective reality.
>
>
>
> Either human beings are the only beings who could possibly do this or they
> are not. Since it would seem rather arrogant to think we are the only beings
> who could possibly exist that can conceive and create, I favor the latter.
>
>
>
> Building on this, I simply notice that the more we learn about the molecular
> world of life, the more it reminds us of our own advanced technology. Thus
> one wonders if the reason for this similarity is because life and our own
> advanced technology have similar causes. Perhaps life, at its core, is
> artificial - a true example of carbon-based nanotechnology. A multitude of
> clues beckon me.
>
>
>
> Can I ever know this? Probably not. But this is not important because I am
> not on a quest for certainty nor does the answer impact on my metaphysics.
>
>
>
> -Mike Gene
>
>
>
> (PS: If you are paying attention, I just informed ya how one can be both a
> TE and an ID proponent).

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 22:08:51 2008