Re: [asa] a challenge to engage Steve Meyer's ideas

Ted,

I have problems with David Klinghoffer's language about "purposeful
design". Purposeful is problematic and unnecessary.

 Of course he is just repeating what the ID advocates have already said.
For example, in the Dover trial Behe and Miller debated "purposeful
design". But to me this is like discussing "purposeful chemistry" or
"purposeful calculus". Its a confusion of the phenomena with the actor
(and the on the scene observer of the phenomena). When doing forensics one
can never know the mind of the actor/observer - one can only examine the
phenomena.

When these folks say "purposeful" one element of what they mean is the
phenomena doesn't happen in nature. That is a necessary element. But
another element, added by implication, is what was in the mind of the
chemist, what is the chemist like, and what does the chemist want. That
may be interesting to people, but it is not a necessary element to doing
the chemistry. For example, we don't talk about how a reaction goes one way
if the chemist is happy and another way if the chemist is sad. The chemist
isn't part of the picture. So I have issues with the implication.

I think we don't have the know the purpose of a phenomena to know that it
isn't a naturally occurring phenomena. I have to ask, where else in science
do we insist upon knowing the wishes/mind of the actor/observer in order
to know whether the phenomena was natural or non-natural? Stated another
way, is design objective or subjective? And where else in science do we have
to ask the question "is it objective or subjective?" For example, do we
have to ask if chemistry is objective or subjective?

Another question: Do one billion people believing a topic to be subjective
really make it subjective? When they tell one billion others who happen to
believe in the objectivity of the topic that they are wrong? On what basis
do say this? Is it on the basis that "we have defined the topic to be
subjective therefore you folks must stand down".

Can the objectivity of design versus the subjectivity of design be decided
based on fair and objective analysis?

I think that as long as ID advocates go about stupidly worrying about
"purpose" and stupidly worrying about "which intelligence would cause which
phenomena" the answer is clearly no; no fair and objective analysis will
ever be used to decide the question. So, now I am going to have to read
Meyer's book to see if he, of all people, entangles purpose with the
detection of design. I will prepare by purchasing Maalox and Dramamine.

Dave C

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

> The following challenge may interest some. If anyone active here decides
> to do this, please let us know -- and put a copy of your comments here.
>
> Ted
>
>
> http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/07/a-challenge-to-intelligent-design-bashing-regulars-on-this-blog.html
>
>
>
> 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 Thu Jul 23 11:33:09 2009