Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
> Bryan R. Cross <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
> >Something I see quite often is the conflation of the scientific question
> >you mentioned above with the theological question you mention here. They
> >are two distinct questions. In my experience more critics of intelligent
> >design confuse the theological and scientific questions (as you and Dave
> >do here) than do proponents of ID.
>
> I did NOT confuse the scientific and theological questions of ID
You wrote, "But I agree with Dave that we are not going to put God in a test
tube!" Please name one ID proponent who claims that ID puts God in a test tube,
or even that ID proves the existence of God. When you imply that ID proponents
are trying to put God into a test tube, you are confusing the scientific and
theological aspects of ID, even though you state that you are not confusing
them.
> In my reading of Dembski, he
> goes to great lengths to show that ID is a scientific question, and on that
> I agree. On the other hand, he then turns around and states all these
> theological things that really have nothing to do with the scientific
> aspect of ID. That is mixing the two, not I. It is obvious that most
> readers of ID literature do not divorce the two, or shows like James
> Dobson's Focus on the Family and other Christian radio shows would not be
> so rash about putting all these ID people on their shows and conferences.
Is there some rule that people can't wear two hats? That scientific
observations can never have theological implications? Wearing two hats is not
the same thing as claiming that ID proves God. As a *scientist* a person can
claim that there may well be evidence of intelligent design (e.g. SETI). Even
the naturalist can (in principle) agree. As a *theist* a person can say that
such intelligent design might be evidence of God's creative activity. Although
either or both of these claims might be wrong, there is nothing unethical or
inconsistent with making them. The error would be to claim that absence of
detectable intelligent design implies the non-existence of God; but I don't see
ID proponents making such a claim.
> ID proponents almost all attack "Darwinism" and not just the philosophical
> implications that those like Dawkins draw from it.
The reason for that is because in general they are using the word "Darwinism"
differently than you are. By "Darwinism" they mean "neo-Darwinism" which
carries with it [tacit] assumptions of and support of naturalistic metaphysics.
> If ID is just science,
> it does not need to attack *Darwinian theory*. Most science works together,
> even with all the different scientific perspectives and supposedly
> conflicting theories. For example, when scientists debate things like
> gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium in respected scientific journals,
> after years of research and debate the answer usually ends up NOT being an
> either-or situation but a melding of the two into a more cohesive
> understanding of the way the natural world operates.
If Darwinian theory were just a biological theory, then the nature of the
debate between ID proponents and naturalistic critics of ID would (undoubtedly)
be much more 'normal'. Because Darwinism is quite often used to support
metaphysical naturalism, there is a clear need to drive (as Phil says) a wedge
between what science has discovered, and the metaphysics it smuggles in behind
its discoveries. I think we can agree that Dawkins et al need to be shown that
their metaphysical conclusions do not follow from their Darwinian premises.
There is no "melding" metaphysical naturalism with theism. Nor is there any way
of melding an openness to intelligent design by direct action (IDDA) with a
refusal to admit the possibility of IDDA.
> Hence my earlier
> questions to this list about whether ID and evolution necessarily have to
> conflict, which the answers tended to be "no." (although you wouldn't know
> that from Dembksi, he contradicts himself on this)
Where does he contradict himself?
> >On June 29 you wrote, "What the heck is this intelligent design theory
> >anyway. I have heard it used for 4 years or so but have not the foggiest
> >what it theorizes." In three weeks or so, you have apparently moved from
> >ignorance concerning ID, to a sufficient understanding to make public
> >pronouncements of ethical disgust.
>
> Yes you are correct. Indeed I have. Students can take an entire semester's
> worth of coursework in one 3-week summer session. And likewise, although I
> do not consider myself now an ID expert, I have read enough to be familiar
> enough to make those comments.
>
> >found in various scientific disciplines (e.g. cosmology, biology)." I
> >suggest you study ID a bit more before publicly making ethical
> >pronouncements against it. Having studied both ethics and ID myself, I
>
> I suggest you not make pronouncements about whether I have enough knowledge
> and understanding to make comments about ID. I have studied it enough to
> make such a pronouncement. It is an age-old question whether it is ethical
> to attempt to prove God through scientific means.
First, this last statement alone shows that, in fact, you have not studied ID
enough, because you are still critiquing a straw man. No ID proponent that I
have ever heard or read (and that's quite a few) has ever claimed that ID could
prove God through scientific means. Please cite a reference. Second, what if
you were the first astronaut on the Moon, and you came across John 3:16 on the
back of the Moon; would it be unethical for you to infer that this was evidence
for the existence of God? If so, why?
> >proponents are intellectually honest or not, and will admit when they
> >are wrong, is not the issue in question (although I believe that most of
> >them are intellectually honest). The issue is whether the basic ID
>
> Well that remains to be seen. If "they" were that honest, they should go
> through accepted means of scientific inquiry which means peer review and
> publication in respected journals.
Where only natural explanations are permitted. Yep. That's like telling Galileo
that he must publish his findings in Vatican-refereed journals.
> >Only if Christian apologists have pinned God as the intelligent designer
> >behind certain features of nature. Besides, ID proponents are not
>
> Oh and you can be sure Phillip Johnson and other ID proponents have done
> this, "confused" in the mind of Christians that the "intelligent designer"
> and the Christian God.
I suppose that in three weeks you have read Phil's books, and thus you are
justified in making this observation. But, in an case, I beg to differ with
your conclusion. Phil's main effort has been to point out the metaphysical
naturalism cloaked behind contemporary science. Of course he personally
believes that the intelligent designer is God, as do you and most other
Christians. Therefore, those who believe that the intelligent designer is the
Christian God are not confused. The relevant difference between you and Phil (I
take it) is not in the *identity* of the designer, but concerns whether
evidence of the designer's activity can be detected. The confusion (i.e.
mistake) lies with the claim about detectability. Either intelligent design is
detectable or it is not. One side or the other is mistaken about the answer to
this question. If intelligent design is detectable, science per se cannot tell
us the identity of the intelligent designer; theology is required.
> >general, they firmly believe that all truth is God's truth. They want
> >the truth, even if it 'hurts' their present religious views; even if it
>
> And now, despite criticizing my use of the word "they" you are presuming to
> speak for "them" as well? Perhaps you want the truth even if it hurts your
> present religious view, but then you should use the word you and not they.
I think I know enough of them well enough to say what I said. Obviously I can't
speak for them all. Take my claim as the summation of my own personal
observation. I have been impressed by their open-mindedness, especially to
falsification.
> And I also might add that no one human will ever arrive at perfect truth.
> One finds that letting go of one's need to absolutely know all truth is
> more satisfying than seeking it like a bloodhound, which is a never-ending
> battle that will never be achieved. Although I believe there is absolute
> truth, one human will never achieve it this side of heaven. Letting go is
> half the battle. Loving one another is the other.
I don't think anyone is claiming to have arrived at or soon-to-have arrived at
the knowledge of all truth. So I don't know who you think needs to hear this or
why they need to hear it. But it sounds like you are implying that ID
proponents are not "letting go" of a desire for knowing all truth. What's wrong
with a desire to know all truth? (cf. John 16:13)
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 01:39:08 EDT