Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

Hi Allan,

You write:

"If the ID movement would only be willing to disown "must be detectable" and replace it with "might be detectable" in Randy's question (and communicate that distinction in their popular propaganda, as too many in the churches have the bad theology that no gaps entails no God), my opinion of them would be much less unfavorable."

I've been making that case at least as far back as 2000. The movement is a movement, and as with any socio-political movement, bold, simple claims are treasured because they move larger crowds. That's why it's called a movement. Furthermore, do not overlook that the ID movement has its counterpart in a movement that fights with them (the New Atheist movement being the most obvious manifestation of that). As one who has argued for the "might be detectable" claim for many years, I have found, through extensive experience, that most critics of ID interpret this position to be deception (Trojan horses all the way down). The dueling movements agree on one thing - there is no room for a modest, middle ground approach. For the ID movement, not only must ID be objectively detectable, it is argued that is HAS been detected. If you disagree, you either part of the Darwinian Establishment or an appeaser. For the anti-ID movement, ID is nothing more than dangerous bunk and if you disagree, you are either stupid or dishonest.

- Mike Gene

  Randy Isaac wrote:
  ------------------------
  "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?"

  Perhaps a modification of the question could also be enlightening in differentiating ID and EC:

  Is it a necessary corollary of the orthodox Christian doctrine of creation that God's action of design in nature must be detectable in some way through unique patterns in nature (beyond the very existence of nature, its fine-tuned characteristics, and the comprehensibility of nature)?
  ---------------------------

  Allan comments:
  YES!
  Randy's question to me comes much closer to nailing the key difference between most EC people and most ID people.

  The first question describes a position (scientific detectability of God's design not possible and/or believing in the possibility is unorthodox) that may be held by a few people who hold to EC, but certainly not by most. There are certainly many (such as George Murphy) who argue that sound theology would lead one to suspect that scientific evidence of the Designer is not likely, and maybe even that looking for it is not worthwhile, but that is not the same as ruling it out completely.

  Randy's second question, in contrast, seems to me to get at the heart of the ID movement, and the main problem that I and many others have with it, in its use of the word "must." I don't mind if ID people say "this is *possible* and we are looking for evidence" or even if they claim to have found such evidence (although I mind when the claimed evidence is flimsy as is the usual case). What I DO mind very much is the attitude that seems to dominate the ID movement (there are probably exceptions) which makes such scientific detection of God a theological *necessity* on which the truth of theism depends (I and others have referred to this as "God-of-the-Gaps theology").

  If the ID movement would only be willing to disown "must be detectable" and replace it with "might be detectable" in Randy's question (and communicate that distinction in their popular propaganda, as too many in the churches have the bad theology that no gaps entails no God), my opinion of them would be much less unfavorable.

  Allan (ASA Member)
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
  "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
  attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1641 - Release Date: 8/29/2008 7:07 AM

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 23:25:59 2008