From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 16:25:45 EDT
I had said:
> "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."
Josh replied:
> -Even so, this doesn't negate their general premise.
Correct. My point has been restricted to the importance of using key terms
("design," "complexity," specified," "chance," etc) in a consistent manner
that everyone will understand. I have long challenged ID theorists to do so.
> 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.
Case in point: What is the operative meaning of "design" here? In most ID
literature, especially Dembski recent works, it refers to non-natural action
performed by an unembodied agent in the course of time (as in assembling the
bacterial flagellum for the first time from atoms and molecules at hand).
> I think the fine tuning would be a strong design inference if ....
But, as I have tried to say many times, this constitutes a very different
meaning of the term "design." It has to do with pre-planning (before time)
the character of the universe to which being will be divinely given. You and
others are welcome to pursue this idea, but it must be distinguished from
the more common ID concept of a form-conferring intervention (within the
course of time) in a universe that already exists. Fine-tuning is about
pre-planning, not intervention.
I had said earlier:
> "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.
But we have to know what generic kind of action the word "design" applies
to. Inferring pre-planning by a Mind is radically different from inferring
occasional form-conferring interventions by a Hand.
Some proponents of ID want to use the same term for both, but I think it
muddles the discussion hopelessly.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 16:54:49 EDT