One has to wonder if there is in the making a separate third prominent player in the ID debate, namely the theistic evolutionists.

I do not see the paragraph of the Episocpal catechism as espousing a God of the four forces, but rather it does so in its final statement at the end, while denying such a thing at the beginning. And the two parts don't add up coherently.

This –"Physicist Howard J. Van Till has written that God has creatively and generously given the creation all of the powers and capacities "in the beginning" that enable it to organize and transform itself into the variety of atoms, molecules, chemical elements, galaxies, stars, and planets in the universe, and species of living things on this earth."

seems to be very much in line with Denton's views in Nature's Destiny. Is Denton considered a proponent of ID? Such a view may deny the need for design of purported irreducibly complex systems such as the flagellum, but it most certainly argues for design and purpose.

Question is whether this meaning will fly with parishioners and pastors when it eventually comes out.

Before that happens, the questions about IC and information may have progressed and become clearer.

One of these days folks like Miller will have to explicitly come clean and then what? If I'm right they won't find a happy place in mainstream religion. Will the theistic evolutionists then have to either join the atheistic Darwinists or form their own group in oppostion to ID?

I don't think they can join the Darwinists because they have moved the need for design and purpose to a different spot.

You say my logic is muddled, but it is not. You think I am the one who first phrased "ID is fundamentally unscientific." But you are wrong. You'll notice I was replying to Krauze in that post, who in turn was quoting the 38 Nobel Laureates. They were the ones who claimed, "In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." I bolded the fundamentally part because it helps us to see that these Nobel Laureates reject ID because they think it violates some principle. That is why they would need some sensational, Earth-shattering discovery to fall into their laps before they would be able to consider ID.

Please don't try to flip the spin of your phraseology onto me.

You claimed, "You have already accepted that "ID is (fundamentally) unscientific." This was misinformation and I corrected it. It is true that the 38 Nobel Laureates (and many more) think "ID is (fundamentally) unscientific." So I ponder the sociological implications that follows from this widespread belief.

In addition, how can you write, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense "“ an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection "“ is not," and attribute it to the Cardinal.

Because that is what he wrote. Read his essay.

Darwin postulated "˜common descent' as in The Descent of Man, didn't he? So then how do you so neo-conveniently separate common ancestry and/or descent from neo-Darwinism?

Because they are separate. Neo-Darwinism is a proposed mechanism for evolution.

But that's exactly the point. You can't encompass "˜all of science.' Or can you? To me, you are limited, perspectival and finite. So why try to speak for Science?

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in trying to parse the word 'science' in this context. You're trying to make my use of the term mean something more than I intend and more than most readers would take it to mean. It's a side issue anyway to my main point.

We're all 'limited and finite'. So what? I'm not trying to speak for science. I'm merely making what I take to be a logical argument in favor of a particular position, while attempting to indetify what I take be as shortcomings of arguments used to defend the contra-position. You seem to want to take this into territory where it is not intended to go.

But as you point out, it is not relevant to this thread at least, so for now, let's leave it here. I'm sure it'll be revisted another time.

You mention the usefulness of philosophy, but not theology. Why? (Note: the above comment was directed to Donald's comments on another thread, but found its way here due to space and time. If it's deemed irrelevant, then bam drop it.)

"Science as I use the term in my comment encompasses all of science."- DonaldM

But that's exactly the point. You can't encompass 'all of science.' Or can you? To me, you are limited, perspectival and finite. So why try to speak for Science? If you insist upon such speculation, then you are falling into the same trap of evolutionism when evolutionists pretend toward univeral application and thus absolutistic ideology.

ID vs. i+d…or perhaps they're the same thing after all, is a side issue to what's involved in this thread. Nobel Laureates don't buy it (ID), evolutionary biologists don't either; it's engineers, information technologists, philosophers of science and former creationists that are the mainstay (if it can be said so) of the current (non-scientific) IDM. That unhealthy balance for such an important topic (origins, processes, evolution, creation) in the discourse between science and religion or between science, philosophy and theology, friends, is unacceptable.

Hopefully that helps to clarify.

Btw, did you read L. Haarsma's text?

arago

If you would substitute for "˜defining science in such a way that sciences could not even discover [a] fact,' then it would be much more patalable. This is more of a post-modern approach. The sciences that make use of evolutionary grammar and (representatives of) those which are claiming i+d theories qualify as science are at the same time not exclusive and not spelled out by IDists.,

I don't see how the subsititution makes all that much difference. Science as I use the term in my comment encompasses all of science. Also, I really don't understand your use of "i+d" for ID. Perhaps I missed some explanation somewhere.

There's something leaner than Dembski's stock of spare ribs coming in.

g. arago

Sorry, I'm not following you here. Can you clarify what you're driving at?

thanks
Donald M

Philosophy is still alive, even beyond American pragmatics and (ID) analytics.

In addition, how can you write, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense "“ an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not," and attribute it to the Cardinal. Darwin postulated 'common descent' as in The Descent of Man, didn't he? So then how do you so neo-conveniently separate common ancestry and/or descent from neo-Darwinism? Likewise, 'unguided and unplanned' only counts for some and not for others. This artificial distraction is something some of the Nobel Prize winners also reflect in their defense of theism in the face of (age of) science. Philosophy, aside from ethics and phenomenology, is usually shamed.

As for Deuce's comments, I perhaps could agree with them, though I'm not residing in the place where such political things as 'shutting down schools of thought with peer pressure' are occuring. Really, is this current-day 'science' in America? Here, things are being freshly debated, shared and contemplated in all manner of science, philosophy and theology (or religion). Hence I wonder what's the problem with 'staying away from metaphysics' in the land of the free and the home of the braver than anyone except them-selves. Psychology often even admits of metaphysics these days.

ID is inherently outside science, ID is not science, ID is not scientific; is this simply to distract from the sharing and cooperation involved with acknowledging science, philosophy and theology (or religion) as co-heirs to the 'evolutionary' legacy? ID theories certainly take such three-factor forms.

"if you are going to tip your systematic scientific hat toward philosophy, then what are you going to do with theology? Did you read L. Haarsma's text?" - Arago (to DonaldM)

There's something leaner than Dembski's stock of spare ribs coming in.

g. arago

There's a common theme here with the Iowa State posse that went after Gonzales at the behest of a rabidly atheist Bible scholar, and in their statement on science defined methodological naturalism as actual philosophical belief in naturalism. Namely, in these little shows of force, these guys, for whatever reason, can't seem to stop themselves from shilling for atheism, even when in PR mode. These consensus statements do them more harm than good, imo, for a couple reasons. One, trying to shut down schools of thought with peer pressure and statements of orthodoxy looks bad in and of itself. Two, that they can't seem to stay away from the metaphysics adds credence to what many already suspect: that they don't really consider metaphysics to be outside science at all, and that the reason they keep declaring ID to be inherently outside science is not because they think it's metaphysical, but rather because they find it philosophically uncomfortable, and they want science to assume and support their metaphysical preferences.

My view is that ID is not science. This is because even though I read the journal articles on a daily basis, I do not encounter any explicit consideration of ID in these articles. This, to me, is not the same as saying that ID is "fundamentally unscientific," which conveys that ID cannot be used to generate testable hypotheses that help us better understand the biotic world.