Re: [asa] Timaeus- ID isn't "God of the gaps"

Hi Michael. Welcome to the list. Some of us here also have "eclectic
interests." <G>'

On 11/7/08, Michael McCray <momcmd3@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand ID but what is "id"?

Randy Isaac (the ASA Director) gave a talk recently in which these two
terms were defined. They helped me and so I use them.

"id" is the position of a Christian who affirms the creation of "all
that is" by God. The universe is "inteligently designed." My own view
is that this ought to be the base stance of anyone who is a Christian,
as well as those of many other religious groups.

"ID" is a strong form of "id." Advocates of ID claim that the design
can, at least possibly, be detected (I can go along with this much --
note the word "possibly"). Many (most?) ID advocates go beyond this,
however, claiming that the word "possibly" has been falsified (IOW
intelligent design HAS been detected). Advocates also (usually) want
to call ID "science" and not "metaphysics." Many ID advocates are
members of the DISCOVERY Institute which promotes these views. Some
ASA members are ID supporters.

Most ID advocates also oppose the use of "methodological naturalism
(MN)" as a basis for science. As a one time physicist, I have a real
problem with this. MN is frequently mistaken for PN, Philosophical
Naturalism, but the ID advocates seem to be fighting this problem in
the wrong way. I don't think they have to do this.

An IDist need not assume the intelligent agent is divine,
supernatural, etc. But many do, and the Xtian community, picking up on
this, takes their arguments too far (IMHO of course).

Hope this helps.

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 7 12:19:26 2008