Keith,
I am familiar with Dembski's list. Following are some comments I've made a
number of times and with which Bill is familiar.
Before any of these questions can be considered we must know what Dembski
and the other vocal proponents of ID mean by "design," "designed," and
"intelligently designed."
Only when we have been told what it means to be (or have been) intelligently
designed can we ask about its detectability, functionality, transmission,
construction, etc..
ID proponents treat the term as if it had a uniformly understood or
self-evident meaning. It clearly does not. It seems to have nearly as many
meanings as proponents.
Not so long ago I asked Bill to tell me "what it means to be (or have been)
intelligently designed." His response was essentially, "That's an
interesting question; I'll have to think about it." Given the numerous
claims that already been made re ID, that non-answer astounded me.
More recently I asked again. This time his response was more specific. "To
be (or have been) intelligently designed is to be (or have been) designed by
an intelligent agent." But that is to say no more than "a horse is a horsey
thing." In other words, another astounding non-answer.
So, my question now is: Why are the leading proponents of intelligent design
unable and/or unwilling to tell us the meaning of the very term that names
their movement? I presume that this is a deliberately chosen strategy. Why
this strategy? Why choose to withhold candor?
Cordially,
Howard Van Till
----------
>From: kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller)
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Dembski: 14 questions
>Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000, 11:34 PM
>
> I submit the following to the listserve for comment.
>
>
> Keith
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
>>Design as a Research Program
>>14 Questions to Ask About Design
>>
>>William A. Dembski
>>Discovery Institute
>>2000-06-13
>>
>>Contrary to popular accusations by critics, intelligent design theory
>>suggests a number of questions that can be pursued as part of a research
>>program. The following are fourteen such questions. Notice that questions 1
>>- 13 can be pursued without considering question 14, Who is the designer?
>>Thus it is clear that design can and does have a number of empirical
>>implications and can be discussed and debated quite apart from questions
>>about the identity and nature of the designer.
>>
>>For more information on objections to design, see the appendix of
>>Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology by William
>>Dembski
>>
>>
>>1. Detectability Problem --- How is design detected?
>>
>>2. Functionality Problem --- What is a designed object's function?
>>
>>3. Transmission Problem --- How does an object's design trace back
>>historically? (search for narrative)
>>
>>4. Construction Problem --- How was a designed object constructed?
>>
>>5. Reverse-Engineering Problem --- How could a designed object have
>>been constructed?
>>
>>6. Perturbation Problem --- How has the original design been modified
>>and what factors have been modified?
>>
>>7. Variability Problem --- What degree of perturbation allows continued
>>functioning?
>>
>>8. Restoration Problem --- Once perturbed, how can original design be
>>recovered?
>>
>>9. Constraints Problem --- What are the constraints within which a
>>designed object functions well and outside of which it breaks?
>>
>>10. Optimality Problem --- In what way is the design optimal?
>>
>>11. Ethical Problem --- Is the design morally right?
>>
>>12. Aesthetic Problem --- Is the design beautiful?
>>
>>13. Intentionality Problem --- What was the intention of the designer?
>>
>>14. Identity Problem --- Who is the designer?
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank
>>headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs.
>>The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that
>>advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty.
>>For more information e-mail views@discovery.org or browse Discovery's
>>website at http://www.discovery.org.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Department of Geology
> Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506
> kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 19 2000 - 12:42:31 EDT