Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

Two things. An answer to Mike Gene's question, then an intemperate spasm of
adulation for Mike Gene. :-)

First. Mike asks, re Timaeus' comment:

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

I think I can only speak for myself here, and as I suggested in July on UD, I
may be slightly unique among evolutionary creationists on this score. But I
think the answer to whether design is detectable is an unqualifed "yes." Of
course design is detectable. We detect it all the time. [insert typical
example such as Mt. Rushmore or bulldozer on Mars] Are eagles' wings designed?
 Are human eyes designed? Are bacterial flagella designed? I say yes, by all
means they are designed.

To me, that's not even an interesting question. The interesting questions are:

1. How did the design come about?
2. How do we understand God's action in the answer to question 1?

As I've said before on this list, I'm not committed to a particular kind of
answer to question 2, and I actually don't care how it turns out. My main
objective in my writing on the subject is to examine the scientific claims of
those who do care about the outcome to see if they're telling the truth.

Probably because I'm a biologist, I'm all about question 1. And the reason I
have so little regard for ID is this: almost none of its main proponents is
able/willing to tell the truth about evolutionary biology, and I think it's
because their commitment to an answer to question 2 forces an "answer" to
question 1. Specifically, many (most? all?) ID thinkers have already ruled
out "naturalism" with regard to the explanation for design in biological
systems.

Second thing. In other words, the problem I have with ID is not that the
movement is open to supernatural guidance or intervention or front-loading or
whatever. Unlike some other "TEs" I have never claimed that design thinking is
not "science" nor do I think discussions of that topic are even worthwhile.
The idea of design is interesting. The implications of design are interesting,
for Christians especially. My problems with ID thinkers are much more serious:
they don't tell the truth about evolutionary biology, either because they're
intellectually lazy or because their integrity has been overwhelmed by
culture-war zealotry, and they are unable to respect the EC/TE view, repeatedly
projecting their own assumptions onto the positions of others. The thread on
UD that spawned this discussion was regularly poisoned by this sort of thing.
Are there exceptions? Rarely, but yes. Read on.

What I'm looking for is not a "victory" over ID, with "theistic naturalism"
coming out on top and ID revealed to be sophisticated creationism. What I'm
looking for is Mike Gene, and maybe Timaeus – a new breed of design thinker who
will leave the TE-is-incompatible-with-orthodox-Christianity BS behind, and
talk coherently about the various ways in which Christians approach design,
common descent, and the Creator. Design? Yes! Intelligent Design? Sure!
The intelligent design movement? No, a thousand times no! (Uncommon Descent?
Cesspool!) Mike Gene? YES.

Steve Matheson

>>> "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com> 08/29/08 2:15 AM >>>
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

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, (
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 reliab> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 29 11:03:17 2008