Home » Intelligent Design » Oxford Rocks with ID (Pro and Con) This July

Oxford Rocks with ID (Pro and Con) This July

Ian Ramsey Oxford

Word from the conference organizers is that many more papers were submitted to this conference than could possibly be accepted. “A very large number of excellent papers was submitted,” they write, “of which we were only able to accept a fraction.”

GOD, NATURE AND DESIGN
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
St Anne’s College, Oxford
July 10th – 13th 2008

Invited (plenary) speakers include Michael Ruse, Richard Swinburne, Ron Numbers, John Hedley Brooke, Stephen Snobelen, and Holmes Rolston III (their bios are here). The line-up of contributed papers is remarkable for its depth and diversity. More papers will be added to this list as the acceptances come in.

Y’all better book your place at the conference, like, now.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

11 Responses to Oxford Rocks with ID (Pro and Con) This July

  1. Well, looks like an ID-bash-fest to me, with the usual stale old arguments and a few new ones. How about creating some real excitement by inviting some ID-proponents and staging debates over the issues being raised?

  2. Look more closely.

    Several of the papers are arguing for variants of design, while others argue that the usual way of setting up the issues isn’t working. I know a number of the contributors, and they are not reflexively anti-ID (indeed, far from it).

    This is going to be a memorable meeting.

  3. I wish to God that there were more ID events in my area (Philly, PA).

    Oi.

  4. This conference paper is a refutation of Dawkins’ “God Delusion” arguments:

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~theo003.....Garcia.htm

  5. This is probably the best we can hope for from the Ian Ramsey Center at this time. In fact, I’m surprised that they are going as far as they are in being willing to put design on the table for discussion. It suggests that “design is in the air” and that it’s no longer possible to stifle discussion about it. At the same time, the conference strikes me as something of a disappointment: the vanguard of the ID movement who might allow design to put its strongest foot forward are nowhere to be found and were not invited.

  6. Maybe Michael Ruse will have a chance to defend his thesis about life coming from extra-terrestrial crystals, something he seemed very comfortable believing in while being interviewed by Mr.Stein, only to show signs of perturbance when asked exactly how the whole process came about.

    I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

  7. A conference debating a theory (ID) without inviting any of its supporters?

    If that’s an improvement, that says a lot about the basic situation.

    Will someone make a pseudo documentary about that pseudo conference?

  8. The paper linked by Russ in (4) by Garcia does show the disappointingly limited openmindedness of the conference’s creators. It seems to reflect the usual theistic evolutionist mindset, against ID. “Dawkins successfully dismantles William Paley’s design argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker and seems to prove that the appearance of design does not need to be purposeful design by an agent. However, his argument – obviously not a new one – against the existence of a Designer as the ultimate creator of the universe is totally flawed.”

  9. From the papers:

    Thirdly, I will ask the question whether it is theologically warranted to conclude that the intelligent designer of ID can be the God of Christian theology. In other words, one can ask whether believers should want the designer of ID to be the God they worship. I doubt whether that is the case, by describing Karl Barth’s Kant’s inspired criticism of natural theology. I conclude that ID is an example of ‘the domestication of transcendence’, and that theologians should reject ID as a theological illusion, built to blind the faithful.

    That was from one of the papers submitted, Taede Smedes
    Catholic University of Louvain

    http://tinyurl.com/6zpkte

    Ouch!

  10. Why are people waisting time on the non-existing controvery?

  11. Check out this philosophico-babble by the less than informed.

    Self-organization and Intelligent Design Joseph A. Bracken
    Xavier University

    “Hence, intelligent design by a higher power as proposed by Michael Behe and John Dembs­ki to explain alleged “irreducible complexity” within the evolutionary process is not required. Given sufficient time and under subtle divine guidance, an ongoing set of Whiteheadian actual occasions can naturally evolve to a given higher-level order of organization and complexity.”

Leave a Reply