Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>wrote:

> david.clounch wrote:
>
>> 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 tend not be able to really make up my mind on this issue. Behe
> recounts how he had fully accepted evolution until he began to look for the
> details of the evidence. Thus it seems pretty clear that he was not in
> search of evidence about the supernatural. From what I read (from secondary
> sources) Johnson appears to have been in search of evidence of supernatural
> agency. Dembski at times seems simply to be contrarian.
>
> I admit that supernatural agency is not directly what they say they are
> finding. However, if they could prove evolution impossible and aliens are
> involved then where did the aliens come from? More aliens? Apply the
> question recursively and eventually God would need to be involved.

True. But science purportedly looks at proximate causes rather than
ultimate ones. So maybe one doesnt use science to go down the regression?
The same question comes up when looking at Brane theory. Lisa Randall says
it has theological implications. But we don't let that stop us from
investigating. (tongue in cheek, one could say, I wonder if the large
hadron collider is in danger of being censored because Oh! My! We might
discover something that allows people to believe in God).

>
> The front loading sub section of ID seems pretty clearly not to be
> searching for evidence of supernatural activity. In other words we would
> appear to just happen to live in a universe that has the correct front
> loading ie weak anthropic principle. Of course I by faith think that such
> is an instance of lower case id.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I disagree! See the reaction to Collins. The same is (or should be) also
> the great sin of EC/TEs as well. I think the great sin, is that ID has
> pointed out that in some areas the clothes that the NAs are wearing are or
> might be a little ragged and thin or even possibly none existent eg
> Cameron's request for details wrt evolution of complex biological features.
> ID appears to have a certain amount of traction with the public, certainly
> more than EC/TEs have, at least to date.

Perhaps we dont disagree here.
I didn't mean to say ID is the only view that commits that great sin. I
think TE commits it too. My conversation with Bob Osburn this last week was
where Bob told me nothing, absolutely nothing is ever going to satisfy
the materialists and trying to do so is a fantasy. So Dave, I agree the
problem really is that teleological ideas can prove fatal to materialism.
They have to kabash all alternatives to scientific materialism. I don't see
them really trying to defend people's right to believe something when they
bring these lawsuits. I see them as stifling debate - suppressing beliefs -
not promoting freedom to believe. This is very dangerous.

>
> Dave W
>
> ps Due to the silence on the list I was beginning to think that I was the
> only participant on the list who was unable to travel to Texas this weekend.
> I wish I could go but it is not possible.
>
Me too. I am too poor right now. Last year I had no vacation time. Now I
have time but no money.

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 17:19:44 2009