I agree that the original (a) and (b) had a bit of spin in them, and I =
think your reformulation of those (similar substance, but spun in the =
opposite theological direction, basically) is also compatible with the =
definitions (1) and (2) he very helpfully spelled out.
--John
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@CompuServe.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 11:08 am
To: INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: RE: What is ID?
John Rylander writes:
<<I think Howard's point is that the distinctions he made in his initial =
=3D
post are legitimate -regardless- of one's assumptions on the issues you =
=3D
brought up, and so he does -not-, in offering this discussion framework, =
=3D
build in the assumption(s) you suggested.>>
Howard contends that ID means "one is committed to" the two theological=20
perspectives he lays out. I take issue with his formulation of those two =
perspectives. His first, it seems to me, implies some sort of negativity =
to a=20
God who "withholds" certain creative capabilities to nature. I don't see =
that=20
negativity, which has been assumed, but not explained. Perhaps the line =
that=20
most implies that negativity is this one:
HVT << God is presumed to have forced some members of the Creation to do =
something different from, or beyond, what the formational powers given =
to them
at the outset could have allowed them to do. >>
"Forced"....not "allowed"...these are negative terms in context. I'd =
like to=20
know why we must assume "withholding" is bad, especially in light of =
God's=20
"withholding" in salvation history.
The second perspective hints that the AIM of apologetics from the ID =
side is=20
to search for gaps to explain. I don't think that's the aim. I think the =
aim=20
is to explain what IS, but from an ID position.
Howard's original *definitional* distinctions are, however, correct in =
my=20
view:
<<(1) To be "intelligently designed" means to be the outcome of =
thoughtful=20
conceptualization (which, or course, implies purpose). The focus of =
attention=20
here is on the action of mind (or, more appropriately, of Mind).=20
(2) To be "intelligently designed" means to have been assembled in time =
by=20
extra-natural means. The focus of attention here is on the action of =
"hands,"=20
or the divine equivalent thereof. >>
He contends that #2 forces commitment to the positions (a) and (b) he=20
describes. It's the definition of those positions (a) and (b) I take =
issue=20
with.
Perhaps I should try to re-formulate those positions in a positive way. =
If one
is a #2 IDer, then two positions theolgoical DO emerge:
(a) God is able to demonstrate, and in fact has demonstrated, his =
creative=20
power in time by supernatural acts in course of history. The appearance =
of=20
Christ on Earth in time is one of these. The special creation of man is=20
another. These do not show an inefficient God, but a God whose "time =
schedule"
is his own. He is under no obligation to justify this to us (see Job).
(b) Christian apologists can understand what science has discerned =
vis-a-vis=20
gaps in the formational history of life. It is free to reject the idea =
that=20
naturalism will ultimately explain these gaps, because it has no a =
priori=20
commitment to the explanatory supremacy of naturalism. Indeed, it =
rejects such
an assumption. Thus, the gaps are apparent to all, but the complexity of =
life=20
can be seen as consistent with design by an intelligent agent.=20
Put that way, I have no problem agreeing with Howard that #2 ID commits =
one to
these positions.
Jim