Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

I respond to one point of Paul's, as follows:

I would not lump YEC with ID. This, unfortunately, is what many schools are
afraid of - they are afraid of the legal and scientific confusion caused by
the YEC camp back in the 80's - they don't want that to happen again - I
don't blame them. However, if 45% of their students hold YEC misconceptions
or any misconception, is it not good teaching to address it scientifically
and openly?

TED: Anyone who pays attention knows that I am the last person to lump ID in
with YEC.

However, as I've also made clear, the IDs have contributed substantially to
this confusion (to wit, that ID = YEC) by failing to do any/all of the
following things.

(1) ID's have not made an "old" earth/universe part of their official
platform, insofar as they have one. This by itself, obviously, would refute
the claim that ID = YEC. Most IDs accept an "old" earth/universe, and a few
use big bang cosmology (which is anathema to YECs) to promote design--if
more of them did this, there'd be much less confusion. But it isn't usually
the first card played, which IMO it ought to be since the strongest design
argakeuments (IMO) are cosmological rather than biological.

(2) TDI did not publicly renounce (unless I missed it somewhere, and I
looked for it) efforts to remove the big bang and an old earth from science
standards in Kansas in 1999. Those were led by an outfit calling itself the
"Intelligent Design Network," and their concerns were clearly YEC in
orientation. Rather, TDI pretty much accepted IDN as an ally against a
common foe. It's not entirely unfair, even if it's inaccurate, that people
will then claim that ID = YEC.

(3) Some leading IDs (Johnson, Dembski among them) have said in strong terms
that TE is not acceptable, that it's just wimpy or wrong or both. They are
to some extent claiming this on the basis of a definition of "evolution"
that absolutely denies the possibility of interpreting it within a larger
metaphysical framework that includes purpose--that is, if you accept their
definition of "evolution" or "Darwinism", then you conclude they are right.

(4) The full cooperation that leading IDs gave in converting a clearly
"creationist" book into the ID book, "Of Pandas and People," speaks for
itself. One of the dumbest decisions that could have been made, IMO.

In the politics of science, the politics drives the science. Again and
again. And again.

This is all I have time for this morning, but it's already enough to show
why there is so much confusion about this.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 14 11:31:38 2007