From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 17:15:16 EST
I give up. You win. For me to reply to all the misunderstandings and factual
errors in the message below would be unfruitful. You read so much into my
e-mail posts that is not there and are so keen in discussing motivations
that I must find other venues to pursue the issues.
You may have the last word on this one (do I sound like Glenn?)
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>To: John Burgeson <burgythree@hotmail.com>
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Identity of the ID designer
>Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:51:34 -0500
>
>John Burgeson wrote:
> >
> > George wrote: "What I did in that earlier post was to explain why it is
> > >important to deal with >the real ID movement and not merely its
>scientific
> > >claims or >problems. ...>"
> >
> > Which I observed was not at all a response to my question.
> >
> > "> Let me add that I have not talked about the "motives" of
> > >IDers in the sense of>trying to get their heads guessing why they say
>what
> > >they do. It is>rather a question>of looking at what they actually
>write
> > >and say."
> >
> > I wish I could think of some way to ask you the question so that you
>would
> > address it and not talk about other things. I have tried three times. I
>have
> > asked "what about Y" and you have replied "Z is much more interesting to
> > discuss."
>
> There have been plenty of discussions of the claims of ID
>_qua_ science.
>I am
>willing to grant that they have pointed out some things that current
>theories have not
>explained - the development of information and complex structures in some
>biological
>systems.
> That is all they have done as far as science is concerned. They have
>proposed
>no positive explanations of those phenomena in terms of natural processes.
>Their basic
>ID hypothesis results in no testable predictions of "novel facts." (To
>those who
>disagree with this statement I would say mere "Name one.")
> To go more deeply into that would require us to talk about things you
>don't want
>to talk about - the IDers understanding of how science works and the
>theological
>pre-suppositions of their arguments.
> 1st - & this gets us back to the subject line of this whole
>thread - the
>ID
>argument accomplishes nothing if the Intelligent Designer is not God. The
>introduction
>of any natural designer (e.g., with directed panspermia) immediately raises
>the same
>questions about that designer that were originally asked about terrestrial
>life.
> 2d - it's clear from numerous statements of ID proponents that they
>understand
>the Intelligent Designer in fact to be God.
> Now you want to rule out all these references to God because
>you want to
>talk
>only about the science and not the theology of ID. But that simply won't
>work. If ID
>is to be science then one has to be able to ask about ways of testing its
>claims. &
>investigating God by scientific means is something quite different from
>investigating
>some proposed natural process as an explanation for some phenomenon. The
>nature of the
>Designer is crucial to any scientific evaluation of the ID claim.
> Matters would be different if the IDers proposed natural processes by
>which
>design is supposed to be accomplished. Then their procedure would be in
>line with the
>idea that God acts in the world through natural processes. But they make
>no such
>proposals. (& again, if anyone disagrees, "Name one." & in fact this
>defect of ID is
>just another face of its inability to predict novel facts.)
>
> Having said that, I find your unwillingness to consider the
>ID movement as
>it
>actually exists very strange. In discussing abortion or homosexuality,
>e.g., you refuse
>to deal with these issues as theological or ethical abstractions, but want
>to bring the
>experience of women who have had abortions, homosexuals &c into the
>discussion. But in
>talking about ID you take exactly the opposite approach. You want to
>discuss it as an
>abstract scientific theory & refuse to consider what the ID movement made
>up of real
>people, carrying out real actions to influence state boards of education,
>churches,
>legislators &c, is. That seems very odd.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:48:59 EST