Reflectorites
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:13:43 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>For the umpteenth time I do not claim that "ID does not *require* a
>>designer". I claim that ID does not need to specify who (or what) exactly
>>the designer(s) is.
RW>I distinctly remember seeing you make such a claim,
I deny that I have ever claim that ID does not require a designer. If I
did, does not Richard think I would have been hammered to death on
this by Chris, Susan, FJ/Pim, Wesley, et al? It would be an absurd claim
for an IDer to make and in fact would be exactly the same as what
Darwinism claims.
If Richard still maintains that he "distinctly remember seeing" me
"make such a claim" then he is obligated to search his emails and
produce the claim.
My position *all along* has been that ID requires a designer (of some
sort) but that ID does not need to *identify* who the designer was.
This was covered by Behe in Darwin's Black Box way back in 1996,
and that was what all the threads about an alien designer that Chris and
Pim/FJ made so much of.
So I must say I am *astonished* that Richard claims to be unaware of
my position on this.
The nearest that I can think of me saying that "ID does not require a
designer" is my speculation that maybe Fred Hoyle's claim that the
universe is somehow intelligent would be accepted within ID. Hoyle
rejects Darwinism so he is not talking about unintelligent natural
processes. His position seems to be a kind of Idealism where a Mind is
behind it all. IMHO such a position *might* be acceptable within ID,
because it is postulating an intelligent designing agent, apart from
unintelligent natural processes.
FJ/Pim might claim that this is the same as his `intelligent natural
processes' (whatever they are). If so, then again it *might* be
acceptable within ID if his `intelligent natural processes' were not just
Darwinism's *un*-intelligent natural processes in drag. However, I
presume that FJ/Pim has not got the slightest interest in claiming there
really are `intelligent natural processes' but it was just another example
of his `playing the devil's advocate', i.e. advocating positions he doesn't
really believe just for the sake of argument.
RW>but I will assume it was simply a misunderstanding.
As I have said before, a major part of Richard's "misunderstanding" of
what his creationist/ID opponent is saying is that he too easily assumes
it must be "irrational" and "nonsense" and so he tends to read into their
posts what he wants them to say.
RW>This is the first time I've seen you deny it.
I cannott remember anyone put it as bluntly as Richard did. I tend to
respond to most things so it is highly unlikely that someone would have
claim that I said that `ID does not require a designer' and I did not deny
it.
If Richard (or anyone) can show that this claim has been made about
me and I did not deny it, I would be very interested.
But maybe this is not so surprising after all since Richard announced
some time ago that because my posts were "nonsense" and "irrational"
that he was not going to pay much attention to them?
RW>I'm glad that misunderstanding has now been cleared up.
So am I! Maybe it's a pity this List is closing down. At this rate of
clearing up one point a year we should clear the whole
creation/evolution/ID controversy up in about the year 10,000 AD! :-)
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 12 2000 - 20:08:08 EDT