> Just one example: by this set of definitions, pretty much every theistic
>evolutionist would be firmly in the design camp. No problem there. But
>then, why do ID theorists continually attack theistic evolutionists as not
>believing in design, as being "theistic naturalists", etc. etc. If they
>want to use the notions below, fine. But then there should be never a peep
>that evolutionary creationists reject design simply because they criticize
>the arguments for what usually passes as ID (what would be called rungs 7
>and 8 here).>>
Then let's consider those "notions below."
> Design thinkers are united in accepting the Design Inference, by
> which we recognize that design has taken place. In other words, they
> agree not only that there has been design, but that its effects are
> empirically detectable. They amicably disagree over how it was done.
> Whether any *further* empirical evidence might help to resolve that
> question is not yet known; that would be the *next* Design Inference.
> First things first.
>
> RUNG 5: NOMOLOGICAL DESIGN. A Designer designed the
> natural laws so that their ordinary operation would result
> in the intended outcome.
>
> RUNG 6: INITIALIST DESIGN. To ensure the intended
> outcome, the Designer not only designed the natural laws,
> but also determined their initial conditions.
>
> RUNG 7: INTERVENTIONIST DESIGN. To ensure the intended
> outcome, the Designer not only designed the natural laws and
> determined their initial conditions, but also *intervened*
> in at least some of the subsequent conditions.
>
> RUNG 8: INSERTIONIST DESIGN ("SPECIAL" CREATION). Still for
> the same reason, the Designer not only designed the natural
> laws, determined their initial conditions, and intervened in
> subsequent conditions, but directly inserted at least some
> information into the genetic code.
>
> OTHER RUNGS. It is logically possible to make the Design
> Inference without adopting any of the positions listed above.
> In particular, one might suggest that the Designer acted in
> the later stages of the process but not the earlier ones --
> an option which attracts atheists who cannot resist the Design
> Inference but refuse to identify the Designer with God. Fred
> Hoyle, for example, speculated that extraterrestrial races
> might have long ago seeded our planet with germs of life which
> would not have arisen spontaneously.
and
> RUNG 4: METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. God may have acted
> as a designer, but in the study of Nature, we must act
> as though he couldn't have. In particular, we must deny
> that Nature could contain *evidence* for design, and refuse,
> when asked, to look for any.
So why do ID theorists attack theistic evolutionists (and theistic
evolutionists
attack ID theorists)? I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I
suggest
these factors may be involved:
1. TEs do accept design, but do they agree with the following?
" In other words, they agree not only that there has been design, but
that its effects are empirically detectable."
It seems to me that TEs don't agree with this and instead use a priori
reasons to propose design (that stem from religious convictions rather
than empirical evidence). Take Howard's "fully gifted creation" view.
Is this really something that is empirically detected? In what sense do
we detect if something is a gift? It what sense do we detect if
the universe is fully gifted rather than less-than-fully gifted?
2. Do not most adherents of TE embrace methodological naturalism while
most ID theorists reject it? This might mean that rungs 5 and 6 need to
be modified to distinguish between the ID theorist who adopts these positions
because of the evidence (and the perceived lack of evidence for 7 and 8) vs.
the ID theorist who adopts 5 or 6 instead of 7 or 8 largely for philosophical
or methdological reasons.
3. Finally, TEs almost universally embrace the "blind watchmaker" mechanism
of design, implying a rational mind that employs the blind watchmaker to
design *every* biological feature. But again, is this claim rooted in
evidence or
assumption? Again, any TE who claimed there is no evidence of intelligent
intervention, but plenty of evidence of the blind watchmaker could be properly
called ID (if he/she adopts rung 5/6). But the TE who claims we cannot
consider intelligent intervention and must only consider the blind watchmaker
(or something like this) is smuggling in MN (which excludes ID given their
theism) and should not be considered ID.
Thus, the issue seems to be one of evidence and detectability. Do
TEs really claim there is *evidence* of design? For example, what is
the nature of this evidence such that it allows us to infer a designer behind
the origin of the universe, yet not behind the origin of life?
Just some "low-quality" thoughts.
Mike