Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

Hi Mike,

Here are my own answers to the most salient question FWIW:

*1. Is the point of contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs)
whether or not design is detectable?*

No I don't think this is **THE** point of contention. I believe the point
of contention is that many ID proponents insist that design ***MUST*** be
scientifically detectable for theological reasons. Some / many / most
evangelical TE's (at least myself) would say that accepting the *
**existence*** of design / purpose is theologically necessary, but that
scientific detectability is not.

So to answer the flip side of Timaeus's question: Yes, I believe someone can
be an orthodox Christian and believe in the possibility / probability /
necessity of scientific design detection. From my own understanding, I
believe that the insistence on the necessity of scientific design detection
is a theologically inferior position (note: NOT theologically heretical).
On the other hand, as a rank amateur from a theological perspective (& that
may even be stretching the word amateur) I am open to hearing other points
of view. So, I'd love to see Ted's initiative proceed.

thanks,
On 8/29/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Hi PvM,.
>
>
>
> "I disagree, but of course we come from different backgrounds which may
> likely bias our perceptions."
>
>
>
> It's not a question of background; it's a question of investment. Because
> of my own unique background and position, I have no investment in either
> speaker winning. Thus I calls it as I sees it. But I understand that most
> are either metaphysically and/or politically invested in this issue, thus
> people will cheer for their own side. Perhaps that is what you thought I
> was doing.
>
>
>
> You write:
>
>
>
> "My biggest disagreement is with Timaeus's statement
>
> <quote>Be this as it may, I would maintain that Jack's exposition,
> however orthodox or accurate, is gloriously irrelevant to the main
> point in contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs), that
> point being whether or not design is detectable.</quote>"
>
>
>
> Then you go on to criticize mainstream ID. Since the ID views you
> criticize are not my views, I feel no obligation to respond. But I can note
> that you haven't dealt with the core of Timaeus's statement.
>
>
>
> Is the point of contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs)
> whether or not design is detectable?
>
>
>
> If that it not the point of contention, it means that TEs agree that design
> is detectable, only that the main ID players have failed to deliver when it
> comes to cosmology or biology (which is what I got out of your reply). Am I
> correct?
>
>
>
> Look, perhaps the thread was too long and I did not read carefully enough,
> so what was the answer to Timaeus' question?
>
>
>
> "Do you, Jack, assert that Christian faith logically necessitates that
> design in nature (not necessarily design by the Christian God, just design
> by some intelligence) can be perceivable only through the eyes of faith, and
> can never be established by scientific means? Or do you concede that someone
> can be a fully orthodox Christian, holding a "correct" view of creation, and
> yet believe that at least some parts of God's design can be demonstrated by
> reasoning from scientific data? I am not asking whether you agree that
> design is scientifically detectable; I am asking you if a person can believe
> in the possibility of design detection, and still be 100% orthodox in
> Christian doctrine?"
>
>
>
> Yes, I would very much like to hear the answer to that question.
>
>
>
> -Mike Gene
>
>
>
> I disagree, but of course we come from different backgrounds which may
>> likely bias our perceptions.
>>
>> I am quite impressed by Jack Krebs providing such a compelling defense
>> or at least compelling description of theistic evolution and showing
>> how the UcD posters are quick to reject TE based on a misunderstanding
>> of their position. Jack does a great job at describing the concept of
>> randomness in evolution, so commonly misunderstood by the common ID
>> proponent.
>>
>>
>> Nevertheless both Jack and Timaeus stand heads and shoulders above the
>> common crowd.
>>
>>
>> My biggest disagreement is with Timaeus's statement
>>
>> <quote>Be this as it may, I would maintain that Jack's exposition,
>> however orthodox or accurate, is gloriously irrelevant to the main
>> point in contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs), that
>> point being whether or not design is detectable.</quote>
>>
>> While some forms of design are quite open to empirical detection by
>> science, a point well presented by Wilkins and Elsberry in
>> http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html, they
>> also point out that rarefied design suffers from a major shortcoming,
>> namely that it cannot compete with our ignorance, or in other words,
>> as so well explained by Gedanken on the now mostly defunct ISCID site,
>> the design inference, lacking a positive hypothesis cannot be compared
>> to the hypothesis that a yet to be explained pathway, or mechanism can
>> explain the observations. From history we have seen countless examples
>> that show why such an inference is doomed to be unreliable, even
>> Darwin understood that attributing thunder and lighting directly to
>> God(s) was caused by an unfamiliarity with the scientific principles
>> behind thunder and lightning.
>>
>> By conflating common design with rarefied design, Timaeus is making
>> the same mistake as so many ID proponents before him. And yet it is
>> this bait and switch which is the foundation for ID's approach. First
>> argue that science is ill equipped to detect design, then point out
>> how the design inference promises a 'reliable' detection of design
>> (where design is now redefined to become the set theoretic complement
>> of regularity and chance) and then point out that such an approach is
>> scientific because that's how science supposedly detects design, where
>> design is now redefined once again and ignores that not only is the
>> design inference ill equipped to detect design reliably but also that
>> the design which science has succesfully detected is fundamentally
>> different from the design proposed by ID.
>>
>>
>> Pim
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.