David Campbell wrote:
> >> > Second, regarding your claim that ID defines design as direct divine
> >> > action, that is
> >> > simply not true. Del Ratzch, for example, has the classic John
> >> > 3:16-on-the-back-of-the-Moon example. Even if we were able to trace
> >> > the causes of
> >> > the formation of the letters spelling out John 3:16 on the back of
> >> > the Moon all the
> >> > way back to the Big Bang, we would still be justified, rational, and
> >> > right in
> >> > concluding that that verse was the product of intelligent design.
> >> > That is just one
> >> > counterexample. Here is another. ID is compatible with design by ETs
> >> > a la Crick and
> >> > panspermia. But that wouldn't be the case if ID defined design as
> >> > "direct divine
> >> > action". Therefore, ID does not define design as "direct divine
> >> > action". Of course,
> >> > many ID proponents believe that the designer is God and that some of
> >> > these designs
> >> > were accomplished directly. But that involves further inferences
> >> > from the mere
> >> > existence of design in nature.
> >> >
> >> > - Bryan
> >> >
> >> Dave (Siemens): So one person inserts an impossibility. This is nothing but
> >> special
> >> pleading.
> >
> >A counterexample is not special pleading. Name one ID proponent who defines
> >'design' as "direct divine action". I'll lay money on this one ($20). Every
> >design proponent that I have ever known would instantly acknowledge that
> >humans can make designs (and of course they would each deny that humans are
> >divine). If you want to stand by this claim that the ID movement defines
> >'design' as "direct divine action", then you will have to find a quotation
> >(not taken out of context) from some notable ID person who claims that all
> >design is divine design, and that there is no such thing as human design.
> >Happy hunting.
>
> I think you are mixing Davids here, as I used the phrase direct divine
> action. Humans or aliens as designers would remove the divine component,
> but I would consider setting things up before the Big Bang to create John
> 3:16 on the moon as a direct action.
>
> I have trouble finding a clear definition of design from notable ID
> persons, so I do not think such a quote could be found. I do believe,
> however, that prominent ID advocates are arguing for direct divine action
> in ways that are theologically and scientifically weak.
>
> David C.
I'm don't think I've mixed Davids (although it is a bit confusing). I know you
(David C) made the original claim. But when I showed how ID proponents do not
define design as "direct divine action", David S claimed I was guilty of special
pleading. So I challenged him to provide some solid evidence to substantiate the
claim the ID-proponents define design as "direct divine action". I agree that
prominent ID advocates are arguing for direct divine action, but that is an
altogether different claim than that they are defining design as direct divine
action.
Concerning John 3:16 on the Moon, it seems as though you didn't catch my point. Of
course setting things up prior to the Big Bang is direct action, but the design on
the Moon (which ID advocates would surely classify as design) is mediated through
natural causes. Therefore, this is a counterexample to the claim that ID advocates
exclude mediated design from the definition of design.
best,
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 13:53:14 EDT