attached mail follows:
Hi Steve,
You write: This is my dilemma in accepting your claims. It seems like an total
self-contradiction that ID allows a natural undesigned designer to be
even a theoretical possibility.<<
Jack>> I agree with you that it makes more sense to believe that the designer of life on earth is a supernatural undesigned designer and not a natural undesigned designer, however, ID theory is limited in the claims it can make as a scientific theory. The purpose of the modern ID movement is to have a theory of origins that is a scientific alternative to the blind watchmaker thesis. The difference between ID and creationism is that ID endeavors to be strickly scientific and therefore makes no theological claims. ID puts forth testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Identifying the designer of life on earth is outside the realm of science. There are no testable, falsifiable hypotheses that ID can posit that will identify the designer. You make a very good argument in favor of a supernatural undesigned designer and most ID'ers would agree with you, however, nothing you say is testable by the scientific method. That's my point. ID is suppose to be a scientific theory. It will lose that status if it starts making theological claims that can't be verified by the scientific method. <<
Steve>>This is why I believe that ID must inevitably claim that a supernatural entity is the undesigned designer. Anything else betrays ID's goal of objectively identifying design in living organisms.<<
Jack>> How can ID as a scientific theory make the claim that a natural undesigned designer isn't a theoretical possibility? If you can come up with a testable hypothesis that demonstrates the impossibility of a natural undesigned designer I am sure the ID movement would adopt that position. Besides, identifying the creator involves more than just saying who you think it is. The opponents of ID want you to show them the creator. They want proof not just theological assertions. You can't put God in a test tube and examine him. The best we can do is examine God's creation and look for evidence of intelligent design. ID theorists who are Christians don't hide the fact that they think the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, however, when they make such claims they are are expressing their theological views and not making any claim from within ID theory.
Now let's assume for the moment that an undesigned natural entity came into existence through some unknown naturalistic process in another part of our universe and then came to earth. You claim that if we examined such an entity that we would wrongly conclude it was intelligently designed, therefore, we couldn't be sure that anything was intelligently designed. Well, if that were the case you would be absolutely right. If we are to assume that naturalistic processes exist that can mimic intelligent design then of course there would be no way to distinquish things designed from things not designed but the fact is we have no reason at the present time to assume that naturalistic processes exist that can mimic intelligent design, therefore if something looks designed we should assume it is designed unless we have a good reason to think otherwise. This argument you raise is one that the Darwinists make all the time and they don't need an undesigned natural entity coming to earth to make their point. The Darwinists already make the claim that a naturalistic process that can mimic intelligent design exists in nature. This is the random mutation/natural selection mechanism, the blind watchmaker. Since this mechanism is suppose to be able to create complex biological structures and organs the Darwinists argue there is no way to tell the difference betweeen something produced by natural selection and something produced by intelligent design. This is where the current debate between ID and the blind watchmaker thesis is centered. ID theory doesn't need to identify the creator in order to make testable hypotheses nor does ID theory need to identify the creator in order to demonstrate the shortcomings of the blind watchmaker thesis. And that's all it's really equipped to do. Identifying the creator is the job of theology not science.
Yes, you can post this to the reflector if you want. By the way what is involved in joining the reflector? This is something I might want to do in the future.
Jack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 22:12:10 EDT