From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 11:04:14 EDT
Burgy,
I think we are making progress.
The only disagreement seems to on the matter of labels. I had said:
>>>It seems to me that stating the MN principle this way allows us to deal
>>>directly with the way in which science and ID relate. This is the form of
>>>MN that ID rejects.>>
To which you replied:
> Here we diverge. If you substitute for "ID" in the above the words "the
> current ID movement as promoted by Johnson, Dembski, Wells, etc." then I
> would agree. But I'd like to address the general idea, not a particular
> incarnation of it which both you and I see as fatally flawed.
When I refer to the "ID movement" I do indeed have the Johnson, Behe,
Dembski, Wells et al crowd in mind. They are the ones who adopted the term
as their identifying name and marketing slogan. Because of this, I think we
would be well advised to employ some other generic label for the general
idea you would like to evaluate. How about MD, Mindfully Designed, or some
other term that focuses attention of the idea that the universe exhibits a
character that strongly points to the prior intentional action of Mind?
> I asked you if you had read Ratzsch's last book on the subject? I purchased
> my own copy which just arrived so I can take Iliff's library copy back and
> start marking my own.
I read parts of it some time ago. Del is a very careful and precise writer
who makes those essential distinctions that most ID folk flatten with their
politically powered steam-roller.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 11:34:14 EDT