RE: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents

Hi Ted,
 
In short, some things to agree with here and glad to hear them. But no, as a whole it's an insufficient reply. Your quoting of William Dembski on the topic is entirely disappointing!
 
I guess I'll have to wait for Keith to render the verdict. One can only imagine that it will be a 'super' (e.g. not a 'supra') one or not an answer at all.
 
Gosh I'm glad that I'm not fixated (read: fetished) these days on 'intelligent + design' like so many people (apparently) are in America!
 
Gregory

--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

From: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents
To: asa@calvin.edu, "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>, kbmill@ksu.edu, gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 4:58 PM

Gregory,

I have been helping my daughter move all weekend, and with another daughter
finishing college soon I have virtually no time to spend on email unrelated
to my day job.

I will however refer you to my previous answer. Humans are
"non-natural" agents in the sense meant by your question. It's common for ID proponents
to stress the distinction between "natural" and "intelligent," and there is plenty of justification for this. My comments earlier were neither
tongue-in-cheek nor soft-peddled. This is a very fair distinction to make,
and we do it all the time outside of science and sometimes within science.
If opponents of ID don't agree, then I do not take their objections
seriously and chalk them up to the politics of the issue.

At the same time, it's evident that when we are talking about design in the
universe, anyone and everyone knows that the relevant distinction is
"natural" vs "supernatural," since as Dembski has pointed out numerous times, the specified complexity of natural objects must be the result of an
"unevolved intelligence" or "unembodied mind." (He has used both terms in this context.) Anyone and everyone knows that this is God, but that simple
three-letter word is sometimes scrupulously avoided in the conversation.
Inferences to God go well beyond science, so ID opponents are well justified
to sense that supernaturalism is the elephant in the room. If ID proponents
don't agree, then I do not take their objections seriously and chalk them
up to the politics of the issue.

Is this a sufficient reply, for your purposes, Gregory? I have made every
effort to answer directly and to the point.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 20 10:38:46 2009