Ted wrote:
> What *I* think we need is a place where *both* schools of thought
> can come
> into regular contact, both formal and informal contact, a place where
> students are exposed very seriously to ideas from both camps, *by
> advocates
> of those ideas*. To the best of my knowledge, there presently is
> no such
> place. This list *could* perhaps be that place, if it were more
> hospitable
> to IDs, or a place like Biola *could* perhaps be such a place, if
> it would
> hire a few people like "us." Presently only something like the
> occasional
> ASA meeting (some meetings have this, others don't) is such a
> place, but not
> always and always only for a brief instant in time not on a continued,
> ongoing basis. I wish I were wrong about this, but I do not think
> that I
> am.
I agree with Ted that ASA should be the place for such a discussion.
The focus of such a discussion should be the substantive underlying
issues NOT the the validity, or lack thereof, for ID. The focus
needs to be on issues such as the nature and limitations of science,
the meaning and validity of "methodological naturalism" as a
description of the scientific enterprise, the nature of historical
science, the meaning and implications of the theology of creation,
the validity of "natural theology," and the meaning and practice of
a Christian vocation in the sciences. These are very important
issues and they have rarely been the topic of focussed discussion.
I also think that such discussion needs to be face-to-face at an ASA
meeting with the majority of time devoted to extended questioning.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Wed Apr 5 22:10:21 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 05 2006 - 22:10:21 EDT