RE: [asa] ID vs TE books

I'm really interested in answering this question but under deadline right
now. I am interested in what you mean though when you say ID is NOT a
classic religio-political movement and you've studied this. How so? How have
you studied it, and how does it differ?

I'll get back to the rest next week I hope!

best

Wendee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian

                http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
<http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/>
Bohemian Adventures Blog * http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
<http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>

The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
<http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/>
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Online Writing Course! Starting Aug 4. Sign Up Online!

From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:28 PM
To: WENDEE HOLTCAMP; 'George Murphy'; 'David Campbell'; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ID vs TE books

Hi Wendee,

Yes, I agree that part of the big tent strategy is to sell more books. If
the majority OEC-IDists told the YEC-IDists to take a hike, the IDM's fan
base would shrink. Some people keep waiting for Paul Nelson's Uncommon
Descent monograph from UofChicago series, to be published. Of course, the
Debmski-O`Leary UD website is a play on words of Nelson's title, something
that is supposed, by the expectations of several IDists according to their
publications, to shake up the origins debate. I'm not holding my breath.

The sentence about IDM being a 'classic religio-political movement' I
disagree with and have studied in some depth. And as someone who actually
studies social movements, i.e. not just an armchair critic of the IDM, I
would suggest you try to find a more objective approach. There are some
IDists who are obviously 'doing science,' though it may not fit the
Universal Science definition that is promoted by scientistic ideology, and
those who argue 'design' has no place in any science forever, end of story,
case closed (which violates, among other things, the principle of
provisionality).

As for the interesting question, do we have the same one in mind? I asked:
Where/when do TEs/ECs part company with Darwin? Is this a question you are
willing to address? If so, and if you actively part company with Darwin or
with neo-Darwinism, then you'll quickly find you have things in common with
many IDists. This needn't mean you would subscribe to ID - I certainly
don't, but like George, I'm not trained in information theory, probability
theory or other features in their scientific claims and so can't pass
judgement on them. One can certainly accept aspects of evolutionary theory
(which, as an evolutionary biologist, you surely do!), even Darwinian
evolution, without subscribing to Darwinism (as ideology). That is, unless
you think Darwinism=evolutionary biology, in which case some linguistic
upgrading would be necessary. But is Darwin really still comprehensive,
up-to-date, cutting edge, or would you call your evolutionary perspective
something post-Darwinian, something that improves upon Darwin's pre-genetics
views?

Regards,

Gregory

WENDEE HOLTCAMP <wholtcamp@houston.rr.com> wrote:

Gregory wrote:

Let it be noted that none of the three persons I mentioned are theologians,
so what George is really saying: 'Come into my playground, let's play
fairly!' :-) How about we just take any one of those three persons and
compare the number of books sold in the past five years with the number of
books sold by George, or for that matter any other TE? (Francis Collins
would likely top the list for TE's, even for EC's - evolutionary
creationists?)

Interesting since I'm a TE about to write a book. Do you think that part of
the reason IDers employ a big tent strategy is because they want to sell
more books? I'm utterly convinced. Not just sell more books but attract more
to their movement, because that means more money and more political power.
ID is a classic religio-political movement, not driven by scientific inquiry
and not driven by any quest for truth or for God.

John has pointed out that Behe's views are in some ways compatible with some
features of TE/EC, but that he disagrees with Darwinian evolution and seeks
to expose 'Darwinian fancies.' It would be a much more balanced conversation
for TEs/ECs and TNs of they would point out Darwinism's weak points and even
his errors, rather than contributing to the myth of Darwin's all-greatness,
as the Brights do. Where/when do TEs/ECs part company with Darwin?

This is an interesting question I'm interested in also. I think that they
are anti-science in that they align science with materialism.

Wendee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian

                http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
<http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/>
Bohemian Adventures Blog * http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
<http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>

The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
<http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/>
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Online Writing Course! Starting Aug 4. Sign Up Online!

  _____

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people.
<http://ca.answers.yahoo.com> Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 24 22:37:11 2007