RE: [asa] Olasky on Collins

"Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing ID. That seems contradictory to him."

That seems typical of the people at my evangelical church too. It is as if evolution=atheism and ID=Christianity.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:07 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

I'm not sure either direction is right. Olasky states his views of what ID is and he's rather far off the mark. Why wouldn't there be a problem if he simply thinks Collins is inconsistent by opposing a view which is the same as his own? I think I spelled out the kind of ID coverage that Collins would support. Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing ID. That seems contradictory to him. That's why he would like some clarification.

Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwarzwald<mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:01 PM
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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.