Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Instead of getting hung up on trying to define ID for the purposes of a
response here, why not respond by asking Olasky to explain what he views ID
as comprising and why? If he wants to argue that what Collins believes about
evolution actually qualifies as ID, I fail to see the problem. Wouldn't that
be a step in the right direction? Or is the idea that Collins should be
viewed as utterly distinct from ID, no matter what ID actually covers?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 28 18:02:05 2009