Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

> 3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
> No, not the ID that is so prominently discussed in the media. Yes, as
> Christians we all believe that our Creator is an intelligent designer and we
> all believe that the awesome world around us simply shouts out the existence
> of this intelligent designer. But that's not what ID is. ID is the belief
> that a) evolution is not an adequate explanation of the origin of species,
> and b) that there is a specific logical argument
> based on the information-like, specified complexity-type character of DNA
> for which the best
> explanation is an indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the argument
> with which Collins disagrees.
>

Exactly what ID is is rather problematic. Regrettably, the given
definitions seem to have more to do with the perceived audience appeal
than to consistent delineation. As the Dover trial pointed out, the
phrase is used as a substitute for creation science. It includes a
wide range of levels of acceptance of evolution, from total denial to
fairly full acceptance.

What its claimed theological/philosophical base would be is also
problematic. In particular, it is marketed as both a Christian
apologetic and as a religiously neutral scientific endeavor.

The strength of claims made also varies. Does ID assert that evidence
of "design" is a well-supported scientific theory, or does it just
have some curious observations in search of a theory, or is it merely
a possibility that's worth investigating (or at least ought not be
dismissed out of hand)?

I am inclined to define ID as the search for evidence about
supernatural agency in the physical world. As such, the definition
covers Dawkins as well as Johnson-both are trying to support their
theology by invoking science.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.