Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

Heya John,

Last reply for me today. At my limit, and I've got work to do besides.

I didn't say God didn't do it. I said that, at most, an intelligent cause
(or that 'unevolved intelligence') was responsible - which, while capable of
wiping atheism and standard naturalism off the playing field, still leaves
that field wide open and does not guarantee the Christian (or any
monotheistic or known) God. It's compatible with Christianity, but it's just
compatibility.

Second, I don't think it's fair to ask 'If they agree, why does WLC feel the
need to debate another Christian', as if this was some kind of odd
unprovoked debate-mugging. I could just as easily ask, if Ayala agrees with
WLC about the ultimate cause (Does he? I honestly have no idea of Ayala's
stated religious beliefs), why is he picking on ID? Why did Aquinas pick on
the ontological argument? The answer being, even theists like to sort out
arguments, even indirect arguments, for God. (Really, the Kalam cosmological
argument - even if it's utterly successful - does not, by Craig's own
admission, get you to Christ. But it's part of a greater set of arguments.)

Third, here's a distinction that I really wonder if you appreciate. If the
ID inference works, and inferring design in nature is not just rationally
but scientifically justifiable (standard disclaimer of my problem with
this), again: It does not get you to the Christian God, not even necessarily
anything like the Christian God. It gets you to, at most, a powerful
designer. Now, a powerful designer of nature is not compatible with atheism
or standard naturalism - but it's at least broadly compatible with (among,
again, many other types of designers) the Christian God. Additional
arguments, beliefs, considerations etc may get you from the design inference
to Christianity. But note: Those are -additional- arguments, beliefs, and
considerations. And they're not properly ID inferences at that point. So if
WLC is arguing '[the Christian] God did do it', and that this God 'did it
via an interventionist way' -- which, again, is not the only way an ID
inference can work (See Denton, see Conway Morris, etc) -- *he is not making
an ID argument insofar as he's arguing for the Christian God*. Just about
every ID proponent I've read will cop to this. I think it's fair to say
they're famous for it. And, while their ultimate motivations are typically
questioned ('We know who they REALLY think the designer is!'), I think their
claim that a successful ID inference cannot and does not, by itself, go that
far is iron-clad.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I made the claim that refuting Darwinian evolution equates to "God did it"
> in the context of the WLC debate and I will own it.
>
> But if you disagree then let me ask you why would WLC feel the need to
> debate another Christian whether ID is viable or not? If God didn't do it,
> then what does ID mean then?
>
> They agree that God was the ultimate cause, they only disagree on how He
> did it. So for WLC to take the opposite side of the issue from Ayala and
> evolution, he is obviously arguing that God did do it, and via an
> interventionist and not naturalistic way.
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Thu, November 12, 2009 2:37:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
>
> I'd agree with this. That Ayala may be on the side people believe to be
> correct doesn't mean that Ayala is therefore preordained to win the debate,
> and his failure to win doesn't mean that he's incorrect. It should be
> somewhat instructive that Ayala seems to have come unprepared - and it does
> lead one to ask, does this mean Ayala just doesn't have a proper grasp of ID
> to begin with?
>
> I'd also disagree with this oft-repeated claim that ID's argument is "if
> Darwinian evolution didn't do it then God did it!" I see this claimed again
> and again, again and again I ask for proof of this claim coming from Behe,
> or Dembski, or even the dreaded DI in general.. and again and again it's
> never forthcoming.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Marcio Pie <pie@ufpr.br> wrote:
>
>> You have to notice the way the problem was proposed. The debate question
>> was "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (so, there isn’t a discussion about
>> atheism vs theism). Both sides have to present their case. Regardlesss of
>> WLC, Ayala wasn’t able to make the case that it isn’t. That doesn’t mean
>> that Craig’s arguments couldn’t be refuted. Rather, Ayala didn’t make an
>> effort to understand the argument from the other side so that it could be
>> properly addressed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcio
>>
>>
>>
>> *De:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *Em
>> nome de *John Walley
>> *Enviada em:* quinta-feira, 12 de novembro de 2009 13:06
>> *Para:* Thomas Pearson; AmericanScientificAffiliation
>> *Assunto:* Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, just like YEC. If you can't show specific mutuational pathways to
>> explain all the history of life then you forfeit the argument and we win by
>> default. That proves God did it. I think this is a valid argument on
>> complexity but only from a philosophical or theological point of view. And
>> on this point WLC and Ayala don't disagree. So what are they debating?
>>
>>
>>
>> WLC inisists on enforcing the ID party line which is that design should be
>> scientifically detactable and his inferences are scientific and therefore
>> atheism is falsified. What is missing from this argument is that maybe God
>> did it but not being scientifically detectable so as to intentionally give
>> atheists cover for their unbelief.
>>
>>
>>
>> WLC said he heard Ayala disparaging ID and he wanted to defend it so
>> therein lies the debate. WLC assumes like ID and RTB that if God did it, He
>> left His fingerprints on it and we can sleuth Him out and prove Him. He is
>> not open to the fact that maybe God hid Himself in His creation so that it
>> takes faith to find him which is more consistent with how He revealed
>> Himself in the incarnation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again this is not something we should be fighting over.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Thomas Pearson <pearson@utpa.edu>
>> *To:* AmericanScientificAffiliation <asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Thu, November 12, 2009 9:46:14 AM
>> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
>>
>> On Thursday, November 12, John Walley reported the following quote from
>> William Lane Craig:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>First, I argued that Ayala fails to disqualify ID scientifically
>> because he cannot show that the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and
>> natural selection are capable of producing the sort of biological complexity
>> we see on earth.<<<
>>
>>
>>
>> Do proponents of ID routinely argue that if Darwinian mechanisms of RM and
>> NS are inadequate as explanations, that constitutes a failure to disqualify
>> ID scientifically? Does that mean ID automatically becomes the default
>> position if doubts are cast on Darwinian accounts of evolution? It seems
>> like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing here?
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Pearson
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Thomas D. Pearson
>>
>> Department of History & Philosophy
>>
>> The University of Texas-Pan American
>>
>> Edinburg, Texas
>>
>> e-mail: pearson@utpa.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 20:26:06 2009