Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

This thread seems to compliment the recent thread on ‘What exactly is a TE?’ However, the question in this thread’s title appears to be quite different than where the discussion has led thus far. Of course, David O. asked several questions about OEC and TE, but it would seem that the ‘additive dimension’ of ID in the context of 'science, faith and scripture' (a.k.a. 'science and religion discourse) has not yet much been touched (with the exception of A. Moorad’s praise).
   
  Let me first suggest that I think David O. should at least acknowledge the discussion in the ‘what is a TE’ thread that took into account the term ‘evolutionary creation’ (EC), which provides an alternative to TE in some important ways (e.g. EC does not prioritize ‘evolution,’ ‘evolving’ or ‘processes’ ahead of ‘creation,’ ‘creativity’ or ‘origins’). Thus, I propose that EC be added to this thread’s scope (i.e. not just OEC/ID and TE) in order to give a more accurate picture of those who dialogue at ASA, i.e. who commonly prefer EC (this includes Keith Miller and David Campbell among others) to TE (this includes George Murphy’s ‘you’re not going to get rid of TE’ rhetoric).
   
  Steve writes: “TE seems to blur the line between human and non-human – at least the continuous process makes articulating the difference more difficult.” (my emphasis)
   
  Yes, due North! Though this was not something raised in peoples’ definitions of what a TE is I think it is a fair and accurate insight. Again, however, the gnarly notion of ‘process philosophy’ creeps in. Helping to remove us from that controversial issue, theories of ‘intelligent design’ (which I often refer to as ‘i+d’) commonly allow both possibilities, i.e. that humans are specially created, unique beings, alongside acknowledging that as partly-biological entities, human beings (can) thus qualify as physical-sites for biological evolution to occur. Most ID advocates that I have encountered accept that human beings evolve just as other biological entities evolve; but that they/we are somehow special and uniquely created in the imago Dei, which TE and EC seem to blur (with sometimes fancy rhetoric like Peacocke’s and X’s that are particularly blunt when speaking anthropologically and psychologically – two dimensions undisputedly involved in questioning “the line between
 human and non-human”).
   
  This approach is, imo, a positive and an ‘additive dimension’ of i+d because it gives space for conflicting opinions to elaborate various viewpoints and thus to ‘explore evolution’. This is also what has allowed the IDM to build a ‘big tent’ where YECs and OECs – whether of the EC or TE variety – can peacefully coexist. I consider this a more effective place for open communication than one that disallows dissent and/or questioning of the neo-Darwinian ‘evolutionary synthesis’ (though it is not so synthetic across natural and social-humanitarian fields) that often includes a hidden (Murphy) or obvious (Dawkins) ideological hammer.
   
  John writes: “I have never heard of a TE position that claimed Darwinism was compatible with a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.“
   
  Let us just say ‘real, flesh and blood, actually existing Adam and Eve’ (or something like that) to get us away from the ‘literal’ vs. ‘figurative’ dichotomy. Most people at ASA (I mean on this list at least), including the surprising contribution of Dick Fisher (as noted by Steve), have said they believe in ‘real, flesh and blood, actually existing Adam and Eve.’ Well, and we could look to other world religions, like Islam and Judaism and Baha’i, which predominantly would agree.
   
  Moorad comments that ID advocates have “fought a very valid fight” against “the philosophical/theological claims made by those who believe in Darwinism.” I will not offer my assessment of their fight’s validity or lack thereof, but simply point out that this has indeed been part of the mission of the IDM. P. Johnson, the so-called ‘father of the IDM’ is the prime example. David O.’s OP seems to point to this dual-role/dual-reaction situation in that TEs and CEs who argue against i+d can easily switch back and forth from critiquing the science-only aspects of i+d, to critiquing the cultural arguments (by this I crudely mean to include philosophical and theological defenses of neo-Darwinian evolution).
   
  To the one response given so far about macro-evolution and common descent, are these two things considered inseparable? In other words, when a person speaks about ‘macro-evolution’ are they assumed to be speaking about ‘common descent’?
   
  In regard to David O.’s 2) “ID might serve as a useful apologetic device against folks who think evolution gets rid of God” – I agree that this is possible ‘additive dimension’ of i+dm though I wouldn’t call it an ‘apologetic,’ at least not in the religious meaning of the word. Of course, ECs and TEs will argue that those “folks who think that evolution gets rid of G-D” are simply wrong,’ they must also openly and honestly admit that it is a philosophical/theological belief and not a scientific one that they are expressing. Thus, on no scientific grounds can they ‘prove otherwise’ (i.e. that evolution does not get rid of G-D) and therefore those TEs and CEs who are natural scientists will have to step outside of their academic specialties and argue on the same playing field(s) with those who think ‘evolution gets rid of G-D.’ This move in itself (i.e. requiring the scientific specialists to generalize a bit or ‘debunking scientism’ in a techno-science epoch) might be
 encouraging also!
   
  My two-bits for concepts/ideas that I think should be added in answer to David O.’s OP question are those of ‘intervention’ (vs., e.g. George’s ‘divine hidden-ness’ and non-interventionists/deists) and ‘pattern recognition.’ In the latter case, i+d adds the voice of those interested to distinguish patterns amidst seemingly ‘random’ complexity. If critics of i+d would reduce their vision to simply consider ID as a theory of pattern recognition within the field of information theory, I think there would be much more interest to consider its potential value as an explanatory principle. (As an aside, I am opposed to the 'revolutionary' rhetoric displayed by W. Dembski, just as many people at ASA are.) However, the choice of the word ‘intelligence’ seems to suggest an anthropocentric type of detective work that overlaps with social-humanitarian sciences, which natural scientists appear not to want to have much to do with due to the greater complexity of human existence and
 also their ‘softness’ in the eyes of ‘harder’ (but certainly not ‘more difficult’ – ahh…the English language and its syn[onym]s!!) natural sciences. :@-)
   
  Steve writes: “ID proposes that divine action is scientifically detectable.”
   
  I’m curious then if Steve thinks that (to ask a less publicly invasive question than 'is it?'), even if “divine action IS/could be scientifically detectable,” that that Action is best called (or even exclusively called) ‘intelligent design’ or 'Intelligent Design'? Please feel free to write a private message, Steve, if you’d rather not say so publicly.
   
  Warm regards,
  Gregory

       
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 9 13:20:19 2007