RE: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

Obviously the subject of ID is sensitive on this list and provokes
polarizing opinions. Perhaps it is worthwhile to try to attempt to define
what exactly about ID is and is not worthwhile. I would very much like to
see whether any sort of a consensus could be had on this as I feel it is a
very important issue to define.

Firstly, I will not attempt to defend the science of ID as I agree that an
argument from ignorance with data we don't have does not logically equate to
a proof for God. Nevermind all the YEC and anti-common descent stuff. On
this I will agree with Pim that ID conclusions are scientifically vacuous.

However, I am still indebted to the ID authors as a whole for if nothing
else bringing all these issues to light and helping show that the case for
naturalism was not as airtight as was being presented by mainstream science
just a few years ago. If nothing else they have educated the entire public
on science and faith issues and helped keep science more honest and have
kept the atheism component of science in check somewhat.

Also realize that YEC is on its last leg now among thinking Christians and
this is almost entirely due to the impact of ID in reaching the churches
with these design arguments. YEC is on the defense now against ID and that
is a good thing.

Also, there are some aspects of the design argument that are valid I think.
At some level I think we all agree on God's involvement in the creation and
that equates to some level of design. The Mt. Rushmore and John Loves Mary
written on the beach arguments and valid. It takes a lot of scientific and
rhetorical wrangling to undo the obvious impact of the truth of that
observation. I haven't been able to put my finger on exactly why we have a
disconnect on this but I think it is because we are too quick to restrict
truth to science.

Granted maybe obvious signs of design technically does not prove the
existence of God and maybe that is not a scientific argument, but it still
remains a logical and valid deduction to most people. If it didn't we
wouldn't have had the issues with ID that we have had. It doesn't have to be
science to be true. And this truth of design and high improbability
characteristics in the universe wasn't obvious to most Christians a few
years ago. Can't we give them credit for that?

I think they have maybe overplayed their hand in the public sector too much
and it was a mistake not to repudiate YEC, but they have been successful in
promoting a view that Christian's no longer have to be on the defensive
toward science about their faith because much of the scientific evidence
supports a creation type scenario. This was atheism's dirty little secret
until ID blew the lid off of it. Failing that, now they have to fall back
onto confusing MN with PN and technical definitions of what science is and
isn't to get the genie back in the bottle.

This I think has been a very positive contribution of ID even in spite of
all the less flattering episodes. I am reminded of the guy in the NT
baptizing in the name of John after Jesus began his ministry. He was doing
what he could with what he knew and Jesus didn't condemn him for it.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:50 PM
To: pvm.pandas@gmail.com; john_walley@yahoo.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

>>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 09/22/07 7:54 PM >>>, who is not an ASA
member, writes as follows:

Funny how poorly chosen analogies can do similar damage as the
scientific and theological vacuity of Intelligent Design.
Denyse and Behe and Dembski are fellow Christians and should know
better. As far as Dawkins or PZ are concerned, I am puzzled by the
obsessive manner in which some seem to view these people. However, I
have found both of them, and especially PZ, a delight to read when
discussing issues of science.

Ted dissents from this entirley. PZ's over-the-top, in-your-face trashing
of anything resembling traditional religion is one of the main reasons why I
questioned the objectivity of PT in my article about the Dover trial for
"Religion in the News." Both Dawkins and PZ, IMO, are correctly seen as
lacking objectivity. We've discussed this a thousand times before, relative
to Dawkins. Based on what I've seen PZ write on PT and on his own blog
(neither of which I peruse often, but both of which I read at the time the
article was written), I'd put him in the same category with Dawkins. I
suspect most, perhaps all, ASA members would do likewise.

On 9/22/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote (and Pim was
commenting on it) the following:

> Sometimes I get the impression here that if only all the creationists and
> IDer's would get their science right and apologize for all the confusion
and
> harm they have caused over the years, then all the conflict between
science
> and faith would vanish and we would all live happily ever after. There is
a
> double standard in putting the onus of this problem solely on the likes of
> Denyse and Behe but Dawkins and PZ Myers get passes.
>
> I think the downside of this oversimplistic view of the world is that
> obsessed ID bashing TE's run the risk of being used by the atheists like
> Stalin used his domestic communist sympathizers during the cold war.
>

Ted agrees with the first paragraph, but not the second. The rhetoric here
seems somewhat similar to that of PZ and Dawkins, but in reverse. I don't
know whether or not you are an ASA member, John, but I suspect you aren't.
Within ASA you would find a lot of IDs and a lot of TEs, with quite a few
others who would not place themselves in either of those two groups. (This
particular list is not closely representative of the ASA membership as a
whole, although some ASA members participate--there are also many who
aren't.)

I've seen some ID bashing here, and at ASA meetings--though at meetings
there are many papers also by ID supporters, and lots that just evaluate
arguments without bashing anyone. Internet exchanges pretty much
everywhere, on any topic, are so often egg throwing contests and nothing
more.

The truth deserves better than that.

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 Sun Sep 23 23:58:45 2007