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

Absolutely spot on Ted.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <david.clounch@gmail.com>; <rpaulmason@juno.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: 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.
>

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 12:34:41 2007