Folks,
In any case I am in the process of thinking about what I am going to say
in a review of Bill Dembski's newest IVP book, Intelligent Design (ID)
for our college intellectual journal, Pro Rege. I like his readable
historical approach to the topic and clearly Intelligent design needs an
argument like Bill's that contents that design can be shown and
distinguished from non-design if Intelligent Design is going to impact
the broader scientific world. I know many on this group are a bit
hostile to ID but I would still appreciate some feedback.
Right now I am thinking of what I am going to say about the possible
impact the movement could have and here is where I would like some
feedback. Actually I think its strongest impact has been and probably
will be on the evangelical non-scientific world. Here I see it [at
least in the US], for a variety of reasons, either supplanting or making
significant changes in the broadly accepted Young Earth/Flood model
theory (YEC). What I see more darkly is the impact it will have on
accepted [secular] science. I think it is already seen as an attack by
some good and bright minds with some reasonable arguments. I already
see Johnson and/or Behe becoming well known as folks that appose
neo-Darwinism. But to have a strong impact ID would have to undermine
the mechanism/materialism to the degree that it causes a shift to
another paradigm. But I fear that at the most, ID in our pluralistic
postmodern era may be seen as another minor and perhaps legitimate way
of doing science. That in itself is a step forward, but unless that ID
science shows itself as a better science program producing better
science, I am not sure why the mainstream science will leave its
mechanistic world for one that allows a designer.
So I guess I am asking for the farsighted seers to suggest how ID could
be attractive to the mainstream scientists as a program that would allow
him to do better science or if someone sees it being able to offer a
critique like Kuhn, that made scientists see that their science is not
entirely rational and should be replaced by ID or a paradigm influenced
by ID. I am not interested in this degenerating into a pro/anti ID
discussion but what may be the impact of ID and why it could have that
impact.
As a scientist [paleoecology] who is a theist and who believes in the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I would love to see the scientific
world more open to the Creator who designed and sustains it - but I am
trying to glimpse how I think the science world will or could react to
ID.
If you want to reply to me personally, I am working on this at home at
mahaffy@mtcnet.net - but I will also read replies to ASA list.
Blind cc to a friend Art Attema (if I put his e-mail on the ASA list it
will go to the archives and those are public)
-- James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home) 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office) Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 20 2000 - 18:51:55 EST