From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 17:43:55 EST
Howard wrote: "Two factors, however, sometimes make this difficult.
1. The ID literature often entangles these two questions -- religious
motivation and scientific merit -- both in its criticism of evolutionary
naturalism and it its rhetoric favoring the idea of non-natural,
form-conferring action by an unembodied, choice-making agent (a.k.a.
"intelligent design").
2. A person may find it difficult to treat any claim (whether made by
Dembski or Dawkins) as if it were a purely scientific claim proceeding from
purely scientific motivations when there are strong reasons for suspecting
that the claim is in fact strongly motivated by religious (or
anti-religious) factors."
The ID literature I have read makes your first point pretty obvious.
The interchanges I have had with George, where we posted at right angles to
one another until I caved, makes the second point also pretty obvious.
So I am going to stand silent on this one for awhile until I can find some
way to pose my questions in a way that does not involve the IDers themselves
and their literature.
Have a blessed Christmas.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
>To: John Burgeson <hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com>
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Identity of the ID designer
>Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:00:04 -0500
>
>Hi Burgy,
>
>You asked:
>
> > Once again I ask if we can talk about the science, and not about either
>the
> > theology or the motivations of Dembski, Johnson, et. al. I am sure that
>to
> > many those subjects are interesting; they are not interesting to me.
>
>Two points:
>
>1) It is indeed possible, I believe, to to examine and critique, as
>science, some of the particular claims that the ID movement makes as
>scientific claims. The second half of my essay review of Dembski's No Free
>Lunch falls mostly in that territory (you will find this essay -- "E. coli
>at the No Free Lunchroom" -- both at the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics
>and Religion website and the Counterbalance website).
>
>2) If, however, one wishes to examine and critique the ID movement as a
>cultural phenomenon, then the question of what motivates advocates of that
>movement is extremely relevant to that examination and critique. Some of
>the
>first part of my "E. coli" essay falls into this category.
>
>I take it that you are interested in exploring 1) without simultaneously
>getting entangled in 2), right? Fair enough.
>
>Two factors, however, sometimes make this difficult.
>
>1. The ID literature often entangles these two questions -- religious
>motivation and scientific merit -- both in its criticism of evolutionary
>naturalism and it its rhetoric favoring the idea of non-natural,
>form-conferring action by an unembodied, choice-making agent (a.k.a.
>"intelligent design").
>
>2. A person may find it difficult to treat any claim (whether made by
>Dembski or Dawkins) as if it were a purely scientific claim proceeding from
>purely scientific motivations when there are strong reasons for suspecting
>that the claim is in fact strongly motivated by religious (or
>anti-religious) factors.
>
>Howard Van Till
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:48:34 EST