Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

David Campbell said,

"I am inclined to define ID as the search for evidence about
supernatural agency in the physical world."

To that I'd say David Campbell and myself can never hold a rational
discussion about ID until we reconcile our radically different
definitions of it. I absolutely do not believe ID is a search for
supernatural agency in the physical world. [see footnote 1]

I believe ID could hypothetically identify human design (implying human
intelligence), alien design (implying alien intelligence), machine
design (implying machine intelligence), animal design (implying animal
intelligence), and lastly transcendent design (implying transcendent
intelligence), and that the same technique is used for all of these.
Unless someone can show me the difference between one of these types of
design and transcendent design, and also show me a reliable means of
telling the difference, I do not believe we can separate them from each
other. If we cannot separate them then assigning a label of
supernatural to one of them and then dismissing the possibility of
detecting any of them does not seem logical to me. It seems quite
arbitrary. I believe there is a field of non-theistic teleology in
addition to fields of theistic teleology. But it is not being
considered by theists and anti-theists.

Footnotes
========
1. The great sin of ID is it *allows* people to believe that
supernatural agency has affected the physical world. And this is
offensive to anti-theists.

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I have often said that the logical conclusion that follows deep thoughts concerning all that surrounds us plus the totality of the human experience is that there must be a Creator. If one accepts that the God of Scripture is indeed the Creator and Scripture is the truth, then what sort of scientific worldview does this imply? Can people justly call me a creationist for holding such a belief?
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:57 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 1 01:52:54 2009