RE: [asa] ID question?

David said
"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!!!!!!!!"

That's funny. You claimed I 'over simplified' but if anything you should say I 'over generalized' since I'm claiming the tent is so big it really stands for nothing specific.

And you further confirm my point when you say 'there are at least 6 branches... at least two major branches..." You can set a lower bound ("least"), but no upper band. So there are at least 6 branches. What is the maximum, 100 branches?

And yes, I don't know what the difference is between IDM and IDT. If M is 'movement' and T is 'theory,' shouldn't the movement follow the theory? Is that asking too much? You seem to indicate so.

RE: God specially created man biologically. Man did not evolve from other life-forms.
You said:
"ID Theory does not state this."

Question: You are also saying that if one believes man is made by special creation and not biological evolution, that they can't be allowed in ID because it is against ID theory? Because as I understand it, this is the belief of progressive creationists (OEC's). Therefore, you think OEC's can't claim to be ID theory adherents?

...Bernie

________________________________
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:50 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa
Subject: 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<mailto: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<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<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<mailto: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<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

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.
Received on Sun Oct 18 18:29:51 2009