Re: asa-digest V1 #1309

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:36:05 -0400

John W. Burgeson wrote:
>
> George wrote:
> -------------------------
> I've heard the arguments & am not impressed. Of course there is the
> possibility
> of non-theistic designers & things like Crick's directed panspermia. But
> the rhetoric of prominent ID proponents makes it clear that the
> Intelligent Designer they are arguing for is God. What is the point of
> ID attacks on MN if ID can be understood "naturally"?
> ---------------------------------------
> Attacks on MN (Metaphysical naturalism) seem quite appropriate to me. I
> don't understand your position. Do you not speak against MN?

Perhaps we've gotten over-abbreviated. I was referring to methodological
naturalism. But if ID actually includes the possibility of a "natural" designer
then it's no argument againt metaphysical naturalism either. That would have to be
attacked on other grounds.

> George also wrote:
> ------------
> I think the claim that ID amounts to anything more than a
> scientifically clothed attempt to say "God did it" is an empty formality.
>
> ----------------------
> But is this your view of the people espousing it -- or the concept
> itself?

It's my view of ID as it is actually being used - e.g., by those who see
Johnson as a champion of evangelical Christianity. As I indicated, there is
a formal possibility of other usages.

>George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/