Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

Hi PvM,

"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."

Commonly applied is just that - commonly applied. In other words, more
popular. In other words, easier to run across due to media attention and
socio-political rabble-rousing. But as someone who has extensively used the
internet to interact with numerous ID proponents over the last eight years,
I can inform folks that "commonly applied" also means stereotype. I have
met many people over the years who consider themselves supportive of ID, yet
who would not conform to the common, pop media stereotypes of ID. After
all, ID itself means different things to different people.

As for me? I'm simply offering people a chance to move beyond the
superficial analysis and uncover an intellectual world that goes a little
deeper than something you would read in a newspaper.

- Mike Gene

----- Original Message -----

> 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?
>

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 22:36:51 2008