Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

Hi Gregory,

> 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'?

I would think common descent is a proper subset of macro-evolution (eg. one
could postulate multiple starting organisms), but see ID proponent
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ who accepts universal common
ancestry but not evolution & therefore sees it the other way around.
Anyways, I don't think they are completely inseparable in theory but they
do usually go together.

> 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'm uncomfortable restricting divine action as exclusively interventional.
In the vast majority of cases God's divine action can probably be better
characterized as cooperative. However, to say that God can not intervene,
does not care enough to intervene (deism), should not intervene (process
theology), or has not intervened is not right either. For example, I do not
see how the resurrection can be viewed as anything else but a huge
intervention.

> 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.
>

Do I think divine action is unambiguously scientifically detectable? Many
times I really, really wish it were. However, my provisional answer is
that I don't think it is. I don't think we are ever going to capture God in
a testtube. If it were detectable, would I call it ID? Maybe, but I think
both the "I" and the "D" are too restrictive. I'd definitely prefer
"purpose" over "design".

Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com

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 15:27:53 2007