From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 08:13:40 EDT
>From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
> Also, I
> believe Dembski, in response to Van Till's article about degrees of
> naturalism, etc. commented that ID is as consistent with a RFEP as it is
> with progressive staltutory creationism (correct me if I'm wrong here).
Wrong. Dembski's case for "ID" in the biological arena would fail if the
RFEP holds. "ID" (as defined by Dembski) is necessary only if there are gaps
in the universe's formational economy. "ID" action is posited to compensate
for what the universe (by divine intention, presumably) fails to be capable
of doing.
Skip .....
> All of us
> here agree that *somewhere* the filter should indicate a design inference.
No, not if we use Dembski's meaning of "design inference." Dembski's
Explanatory Filter is dedicated to the task of demonstrating the need for
form-conferring interventions in the course of time, interventions that are
made necessary by what the Creation cannot do. If the Creation was gifted
from the outset with a robust formational economy, then there would be no
"design inference" in the unconventional manner that Dembski uses the term
"design."
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 08:43:09 EDT