[asa] Re: asa-digest V1 #9426

Heya Charles,

Precisely. It comes down to metaphysical perspective.

Pretty much. I personally agree that ID is outside of science, but I still
have strong sympathies for the 'movement' at large, and even many of the
arguments - even if they're ultimately philosophical/metaphysical, rather
than scientific.

> When ID proponents seek only what any other metaphysical perspective's
> proponents might reasonably seek, i.e. the right to have their
> metaphysical perspective on the menu of choices whenever scientific
> findings raise questions that go beyond science, then I support the ID
> proponents' argument.

I'd actually go a little further than that. I think any perceived 'abuses'
of science by ID proponents have been going on by their most obvious
opponents (scientific materialists?) for quite a long time. And I honestly
believe a large part of the problem with ID has little to do with any
perceived threats ID may pose to science or scientific institutions, and
more to do with a wish that the dichotomy was what it used to be. Namely,
YECs making arguments easy to shoot down and easier to make fun of, TEs who
speak up by and large hesitantly and almost apologetically, and
atheists/anti-theists who pack metaphysical/philosophical agendas with
scientific results, and try to pass the whole thing off as nothing but
science.

But when ID proponents claim that mechanisms other than random points
> mutations and organism-level natural selection somehow score points for
> their metaphysical side, I disagree, for two reasons. First, random
> point mutations and organism-level natural selection could well be God's
> design, design that science itself cannot discern. Second, the other
> mechanisms of evolution are no more or less natural, no more or less
> able to be seen by faith as part of God's plan, than random point
> mutations and organism-level natural selection.

They could well be - but I've seen ID proponents from Behe to Dembski to
even Timaeus (I believe) argue that those are valid ID viewpoints by their
measure. And the other mechanisms may have the advantage of seeming more
compatible with teleological viewpoints of evolution.

I'm sure there's a wide spectrum of ID proponents with varying views,
styles, and claims. But I will say I've seen these 'other mechanisms'
mentioned at the usual ID hangouts, and favorably so. Obviously,
oversimplification and misrepresentation is bad whenever done intentionally.
So I think this gets into murky territory for ID proponents in general, and
WLC in particular. And again, WLC didn't rule out theistic evolution - in
fact, my reading of his article shows he has no problem with it whatsoever
theologically. The question is the perceived strength of
evolution-as-envisioned itself, and whether said evolution with added
mechanisms would best be considered compatible with ID.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 10:44:36 2008