Wendee, as someone who's moderately sympathetic to social perspectives on
science (though skeptical about ID), I'd push back a bit on your very narrow
and (it seems to me) reductionistic definition. You say, for example:
*"Despite
the fact that #2 significantly moves science forward, hypothesis testing is
where science differs from all other fields of study." *
**
Really? Is that always true? Is it true in every branch of what we call
science? How about in theoretical physics and string theory? Read Lee
Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" if you really think so. What do you
mean by "testing" anyway? Is falsifiability the same as "testing?" If so,
in what sense is "testing" a meaningful idea, given that most meta-theories
(including Darwinism) can't really be conclusively falsified, but rather
tend to get replaced with equally provisional meta-theories? Is it really
true that all other fields of knowledge -- say, theology -- don't engage in
any sort of "hypothesis testing" at all?
Dave O. (ASA member)
On 7/26/07, WENDEE HOLTCAMP <wholtcamp@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> Bohemian Adventures Blog * *http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com*
>
> The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist 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 <wholtcamp@houston.rr.com>
>
> *To:* 'Gregory Arago' <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
>
> *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
> Bohemian Adventures Blog * *http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com*
>
> The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist 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 *All-new Yahoo! Mail *<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40705/*http:/mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca>
>
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 16:24:31 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 26 2007 - 16:24:31 EDT