From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 19:49:25 EST
I confess myself to be completely baffled by your attitude on this matter. You
want to talk about the science of ID. I spoke briefly about the
problems I see in that
area & told you why it seems to me that such a discussion inevitably
gets one into other
areas. You've said nothing of substance in this discussion but refer only to
unidentified "misunderstandings and factual errors" which I am
supposed to have made.
For "keen in discussing motivations" one should read "keen on
talking about ID
as it really is." And it puzzles me that you are so keen on avoiding that.
Shalom,
George
John Burgeson wrote:
>
> 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
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 02:28:52 EST