Re: [asa] ID question?

[bernie said] 1. God specially created man biologically. Man did not
evolve from other life-forms.

ID Theory does not state this.

People in certain movements who stupidly claim ID Theory is their mantra -
they claim this. But they are idiots.

And you have conflated people with concepts. You really do have to
understand that IDM is different than IDT. IDM consists of at least 6
branches of people, and IDT has at least two major branches of concept. So,
if you continue to oversimplify you are in danger of being an idiot, just
like the people above. So don't do that!!!!!!!!

Study what "affirming the consequent" is. Both creationists and
anti-creationists make this philosophical error.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> "ID doesn't care about, nor does it claim to detect, whether a species or
> biological feature came to be by fiat or by some procedure."
>
> I always thought that ID was just for YEC's and OEC's, but now it is
> apparently also for TE's. Yes, that is a big tent. I don't see how it
> could get any bigger (or more vague, as a term).
>
> I now think that ID is an enemy to clarity. And maybe that (vagueness) is
> the intention of ID, and if so, they have succeeded. It will also be their
> doom.
>
> Jesus said "If they are not for us they are against us" and also "if they
> are not against us they are for us." How can you know if someone is 'for'
> or 'against,' hot or cold? Luke-warmness results in vomiting, and that is
> what ID causes for me now.
>
> Which one of these mutually exclusive statements are accepted by ID
> proponents:
> 1. God specially created man biologically. Man did not evolve from other
> life-forms.
> 2. Man biologically evolved from another pre-existing life-form.
>
> Answer: ID accepts both of these mutually-exclusive statements.
> Result: Intellectual revulsion. Lukewarm. Fence-sitting. Barf.
>
> If one wants to attach this intellectually revulsive thinking to their
> belief system, it will then also make their belief system revulsive to that
> same degree.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Powers [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:03 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
> OK. Maybe I'm wrong. So I'll start again.
>
> Maybe I'm using the wrong short handed term.
>
> To guide something entails a guider. How that guiding is accomplished is
> irrelevant, whether it be by fiat (special creation) or by using hammers
> and nails (e.g., some evolutionary process).
>
> So I don't intend by the word speciation to entail some form of process
> whereby species are derived from other species, but merely to say that
> species come to be.
>
> ID doesn't care about, nor does it claim to detect, whether a species or
> biological feature came to be by fiat or by some procedure. The important
> issue is that a Guider was necessary. In the case of fiat I suppose one
> says that the Guider is necessary and sufficient. In the case of some
> temporal process employing material and the like, we might say the Guider
> was necessary but not sufficient. Indeed, this is where ID is non-theist.
> Were ID to entail a theistic God, then the Guider would always be
> necessary and sufficient. Whereas, ID only entails that a Guider be
> necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.
>
> I hope this is more clear.
>
> bill
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Dehler,
> Bernie wrote:
>
> > Ted replied to Bill saying:
> > "Thus, for my eyes and ears, Bill, you've drawn a distinction without a
> difference."
> >
> > I had the same exact response. It is really perplexing. Bill what are
> you
> trying to say? To us they sound exactly the same, so please define both
> terms
> and point out where there is a difference. Otherwise, we're ships passing
> in
> the night.
> >
> > RE: Bill said:
> > "I think it a distinction between guided vs unguided speciation."
> >
> > What is guided speciation and unguided speciation? How are they
> different?
> >
> > Too me, "guided speciation" means God-guided evolution. "Unguided
> speciation
> " means evolution in either an atheistic or 'fully-gifted' kind of manner.
> Both are evolution. Both are against special creation as by fiat.
> >
> > I think you are representing Behe's muddle well. Maybe it is supposed to
> be
> muddled? Is that part of the tactic? Is it a way to accept evolution (or
> be
> open to it) while still opposing it? I'm just asking out of frustration
> with
> the lack of clarity.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Davis [mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 6:02 AM
> > To: Bill Powers
> > Cc: asa; Dehler, Bernie
> > Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
> >
> >>>> Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> 10/16/2009 12:08 AM >>> said:
> >
> > Ted:
> >
> > I don't think I see ID as guided evolution vs unguided evolution. I
> > think it a distinction between guided vs unguided speciation. In this
> > way, if ID is a guided speciation, it could be compatible with special
> > creation or TE, which I think it is.
> >
> > I don't see how the ID debate can be between evolution and special
> > creation, unless you mean something more restrictive by evolution. ID is
> > clearly compatible with either a special creation (meaning God directly
> > intervenes in the creation to create each individual species) or
> evolution
> > (entailing some form of descent with modification).
> >
> > In the latter case, descent with modification could be guided inasmuch
> > as God is involved in some way.
> >
> > bill
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Ted replies. Bill, I don't see much of a difference between "evolution"
> and "speciation." Admittedly, I'm no biologist, but historically what
> excited/outraged/intrigued people about "evolution" was that Darwin claimed
> to provide a true theory of "speciation." He didn't use the word
> "evolution" at all in the first edition of the Origin, in fact -- however,
> he used the word "evolved" as the final word in the book.
> >
> > Thus, for my eyes and ears, Bill, you've drawn a distinction without a
> difference. In my mind, we agree. By "evolution" I mean simply descent
> with modification, or "speciation."
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 18 14:50:47 2009