Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Bernie,

You are right. The problem is that theistic teleology comes in more than one
flavor - it may come in a dozen potential flavors.
ID is one type, Collins' worldview is another. But they all share the same
substrate. So rejecting one flavor of theistic teleology in favor of
another flavor may make sense to proponents of theistic teleology, but to an
outsider it seems like all the same mistake.
But don't blame the outsider. The theists truly haven't adequately
addressed the question.

I think ID, in some of its definitions, doesn't have to be theistic. It
still might be wrong.

Dave Clounch

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> “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 <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* 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>
> 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 Wed Jul 29 12:54:01 2009