Gregory - you can't just redefine science (not you, I mean anyone). Science
is a revolutionary way to process information - systematically and without
bias. Science, without doubt, includes judgment and discussion and
scientists egos and popularity. But what differentiates it from all other
fields - and in some degree from the soft sciences like sociology - is that
it relies on correct study design, analysis via statistics (and not the kind
you can discount as you did in one prior post - real vigorously applied
stats), and the peer-reviewed system.
I published an article with NCSE newsletter The Way Science Works. Check it
out: http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/science.htm
It addresses a common misconception of many toward science. You're obviously
familiar with this but I don't think it's possible for IDers to just
redefine science, and in a way that weakens it. And the fact that they have
a questionable agenda is not to be frowned at. I don't know of any
scientists who come up with 5 and 10-yr plans to overthrow paradigms.
Paradigm shift just happens because of a new revolutionary theory, like
evolution by natural selection. It takes time after the theory for hundreds
of thousands of studies to confirm it and become entrenched even though the
weight of the implication may be instant as with Darwin. But he was afraid
to publish! The IDers want to overthrow a materialistic society - that's a
cultural goal, not a scientific one. If they have genuine scientific
aspirations, they'd do much better for themselves if they'd just stick to
the science and stop all the political crap. But that won't happen, because
that is not their main goal. In fact I'd argue the "science" is a
smokescreen.
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: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:00 AM
To: Michael Roberts; WENDEE HOLTCAMP
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism
Let's don't call out the ganging up mentality so quickly, Michael. Your
views are not exactly hospitable to ANY questioning or criticism of the
neo-evolutionary paradigm; by that measure you are quite obviously
close-minded in your own lovable way. Because you are a geologist you seem
to think this somehow privileges your role in discussion about science and
religion - the world is 'old' deal with it - nothing else matters. Well, I'm
sorry to say, the topic is a bit more complex and nuanced than that and you
should welcome voices that bring an alternative perspective that involves
human beings instead of rocks and minerals! You are not in America and
shouldn't try to speak as one voice with those in 'the land where ID was
invented.'
More likely, it is as simple as Michael defending the status quo, offering
nothing NEW to the discourse, but wobbly commentary on ID that oftentimes
verges on cynicism. No good words to say about IDists <9those who hold
theory/hypothesis) oftentimes means disregarding their religious motivation
for posing an alternative to evolutionary ideology and the doctrine of
meaninglessness and purposelessness. Quite clearly, Michael and Pim make
good discussion partners at ASA in their inflexibility to hear views that
don't agree with theirs and in their penchant for nihilistic, nay, better,
fatalistic contribution. I am neither so quick to give up hope nor to point
the blame at IDists for 'damaging science,' which has its own problems as do
all other spheres of the academy in their 'struggle for recognition,' their
public face.
The sun just obviously doesn't shine enough these days to please those two
persons. So, why not rat on ID as if it is the greatest enemy to their
beloved science that the contemporary world has to offer?! Sad to see such a
bias displayed by persons who apparently swore to integrity as academics, to
follow the evidence and consider the methods where they lead.
"I am around many evo biologists and I can assure you that more scientists
than ever before are angry and frustrated at Christians - because of ID." -
Wendee
More scientists may indeed be angry at religious persons (and there are many
factors involved, not just ID), but many more non-scientists have realized
that preaching universalistic evolutionism, defending it with the label
'pure science,' i.e. as 'natural history' not also as 'theory,' is simply no
longer satisfactory. None of the natural sciences covers those areas of
human existence that over-reach the evolutionary paradigm. And as K. Popper
counselled us, we should always keep on the lookout for alternative
paradigms. Surely in the information age, where the material basis for
science and technology production is begging for a re-definition away from
pure materiality, scientists at ASA should be open to hearing discussion
about science and religion that is not constrained to outdated dichotomies
and ways of thinking.
I've been watching ID for nearly as long as Michael and, though critical,
and surely not an IDist, can draw a much different picture (and I think a
much more holistic one) of the IDM, that does not sling arrows at fellow
Christians so quickly. And yet Michael bluntly accuses me of not listening!
What a song!
Why not let's ask Michael Roberts, to actually respond to the topic of this
thread: how would he define 'theological naturalism'? Anyone figure he might
not wish to answer?
Gregory A.
Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
An excellent post Wendee. This is what George and I are saying in our
different ways but some, like Gregory are not listening.
I have read and followed ID for over a decade and got fairly close to them.
Sadly if you are not 101% with them you are against them.
I wonder if ID is trying to compete with YEC for the damage they do to
Christ's cause.
It is as simple as that.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: WENDEE HOLTCAMP <mailto:wholtcamp@houston.rr.com>
To: 'Gregory <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> Arago'
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:35 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism
Well I've seen stats (the ARIS study - have you seen that) that shows these
groups have increased between 1990 and 2001 - evangelical Christians, people
with no religion, and nondenominational Christians. This is evidence to me
that the divide is indeed widening. I can't definitively show that the cause
is ID but I am around many evo biologists and I can assure you that more
scientists than ever before are angry and frustrated at Christians - because
of ID, which is now not only affecting the public view of evolution and
science but even affecting their ability to get funding (Douglas Futuyma).
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf
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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:28 PM
To: WENDEE HOLTCAMP
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism
This may be true that the IDM has lost many people from the Christian faith
or at least confused them, but at this point it is no more than an
unverified belief, a feeling so to speak. I've said for a few years already
that ID is a transition theory that will ultimately give way to something
more significant. Actually, I don't even think the IDM has stimulated more
scientific research, perhaps only in studying the Movement rather than in
the natural sciences laboratories. If it had come up with a serious research
programme in the past 14 years (since the Pajaro meeting in 1993) then
surely we all would have heard about it by now. May your sadness be tempered
by hope for the future.
G.
_____
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40705/*http:/mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=c
a> All-new Yahoo! Mail
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 26 00:26:38 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 26 2007 - 00:26:39 EDT