Re: "Design up to Scratch?" (The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Roberts)

From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2003 - 07:17:27 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "Perceiving God"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
    To: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
    Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:42 PM
    Subject: Re: "Design up to Scratch?" (The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Roberts)

    > >Premise: All irreducibly complex objects are designed.
    > >Conclusion: All not-irreducibly complex objects are not-designed.
    > >It seems obvious to me that Behe never implied this conclusion & that
    therefore Roberts' argument contributes nothing of interest to the debate,
    because it attacks a straw man.<
    >
    > I do not know that Behe has intentionally implied that conclusion.
    However, many of his readers (or at least endorsers) have perceived his work
    as supporting their own adherence to this fallacy. Johnson and others have
    explicitly endorsed it.

    Me:
    I have not read Johnson, so cannot comment on this. I don't find that
    conclusion in Behe; but it is a long time since I read his book.

    Bivalve:
    Any claim that evolutionary explanations inherently remove God from the
    picture is an example of this fallacy. In light of its popularity, ID
    advocates need to clearly and consistently reject it.

    Me:
    Well I certainly reject this fallacy. I can view with awe and wonder the
    beautiful colours that occur when light reflects from a soap file and use it
    as a springboard to praise my Creator; despite the fact that the physics and
    "naturalistic" explanation is pretty simple.

    Bivalve:
    In part, the combination of the "intelligent design" name and the focus on
    complex biochemical systems is to blame. ID claims often give the
    impression of punctuated deism, in which an intelligent entity occasionally
    drops in, fixes some biochemical problem, and departs again. This is not
    the biblical picture of God being intimately involved in all aspects of the
    working of creation.

    Me:
    I'd certainly agree with you there; although surely you must agree that the
    miracles documented in the New Testament are "punctuated" supernatural
    events that alter the course of events. But also, your description of
    "punctuated deism"; is this not more a description of "progressive
    creation", rather than Intelligent Design?

    Iain.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 26 2003 - 07:17:27 EDT