From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 15:54:10 EDT
Forwarded at Josh's request:
----------
From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
Howard-
"It seems to me that we are just plain stuck with the reality that the term
"intelligent design" has been, for the moment, kidnapped by the ID
movement(Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, ...) and given a rhetorical
meaning quite different from what common usage of such words would
ordinarily suggest."
-Even so, this doesn't negate their general premise. We may have grave
reservations about their either/or strategy in regards to evolution, but
this doesn't mean we will never detect design-- or make a strong inference.
I think the fine tuning would be a strong design inference if we assigned
probability values to different scenarios (and I have no concept of how that
would be done.) In the end, I have probably hijacked the ideas that IDers
have employed them differently myself, so I forgive them, although they
could improve their rhetorical strategy.
"That being the case, I think we have to be very careful when we use a term
like "intelligent design" and give readers a clear indication of our working
definition of it."
-True, but I believe that these issues lie downstream of their main focus:
that of positively inferring design. What sort of design can be pursued
after a strong inference has been made. Although they generally wed their
inference to one particular view of the type of design, we need not throw
the baby out with the bathwater.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 16:23:07 EDT