Re: YEC and ID may be fellow brethren was -Re: [asa] Secularist

> Now that is an interesting argument. Forrest's complaints suffer
> because some believe her to be biased. However, her descriptions of ID
> are well supported by plenty of references so I am not sure why one
> wants to go down this road.

I did not do a good job of distinguishing between my thoughts on the
effects of her position and what I think the proper response is.

Her complaints that ID is unsound scientifically are valid. Her
demonstrations of political activism by ID advocates are generally
valid. Her demonstration that Pandas and People used "intelligent
design" as a substitute for "creation science" in order to dodge the
court decision against the latter seems solid. However, the
extrapolation that all ID is therefore merely a new cover for creation
science is incorrect, and there have previously been discussions on
the list regarding the problematic nature of the interpretation of
"fredom of religion" underlying the court decision.

She will have no credibility with much of ID's target audience because
of her political activities and thus has very limited effectiveness in
outreach.

To the extent that she argues that ID is bad because it promotes a
conservative, religious political agenda whereas the ideal government
is atheistic and liberal, she is just as much misusing science as a
cover for a political agenda as they are.

Both Forrest and standard ID display political biases. It is thus
easy for someone to dismiss or accept them on this basis rather than
based on examining each claim on its own merits, which is the approach
that ought to be done.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.