Thanks for your note.
As many on both sides of the issue can testify, I have been rather stern in
my criticisms of YEC and PC arguments, and have more than once complained
about the grievously low quality of their arguments in this discussion
group.
I also have serious questions about Dembski's arguments as presented in the
most recent First Things, e.g.. (In particular, his [and seemingly Behe's]
claim that "x is irreducibly complex" entails "x did not arise via
evolution". I don't think I understand his claims wrt "specified
complexity" yet; they don't yet make compelling sense to me, anyway.)
That said, the tone of your message also seems to me almost
paranoid, -superficially- (I -hope- not deeply) fitting the stereotype that
miraculous-intervention creationists often give as the main reason their
theories aren't accepted: that the reigning ideology refuses even to
consider the possibility, and wants to shut them up lest they gain a serious
hearing in academia.
People like Dembski, Nelson, and Meyer (and even Johnson, -when- he stays
within his areas of expertise and doesn't mistake himself for either a
philosopher or scientist) are smart, reasonable people. (Berlinski OTOH
seems to me more rhetorical, a gifted writer and clever debater but not
particularly philosophically or scientifically precise -- a fatal flaw in
these discussions.) I suspect they're wrong, but I also think science has
nothing to fear from -their- ilk. They'll gain a real -foothold- in
science, versus a mere hearing (and lay following), if and only if they
start producing good empirical results. They should be allowed to try, even
if this also means allowing them to fail. (They've nothing to show for it
yet, -that I've seen-. Maybe it's because the project is so young; or it
may be that it's just wrong. Time will tell.)
Just because there are a -lot- of (I speak crudely) idiots coming from
further out along the spectrum doesn't mean that intelligent versions of the
broad project are false, let alone worthless, let alone dangerous.
Let's throw out the bath water. But keep the baby in the crib. If strong
and smart enough, it can fight for itself and survive and mature.
(Okay, so the metaphor fails.... :^> )
--John Rylander
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Marty Rudin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 1:17 PM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Cambridge Publishes Neo-Creationism
>
>
> To the group:
>
> Sorry to butt in, but I was encouraged to post the following
> message to your
> group.
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
> +*+*+*+*+*
> +*+*
>
> Creationists have finally slipped one past the goalkeeper. Cambridge
> University Press has just published William A. Dembski's THE DESIGN
> INFERENCE. In it Dembski acknowledges such neo-creationists as Phillip
> Johnson and Michael Behe. The anti-evolutionist David Berlinski wrote the
> jacket endorsement (see below).
>
> If you really want to see what neo-creationists are up to,
> compare this book
> with Dembski's blatantly theological MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH &
> INTELLIGENT DESIGN (an edited collection from the evangelical Christian
> publisher InterVarsity). In it Dembski lays out the theological agenda
> behind the so-called "intelligent design movement." Most of the
> contributors
> to this volume are "fellows" of a thinly-veiled creationist think-tank
> called the Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org).
>
> This neo-creationism is a lot more sophisticated and slickly packaged than
> the creationism that lost in the courts back in the 80s (for
> instance, they
> scrupulously avoid the Bible in their public discussions). Given
> that 50% of
> Americans are creationists, this new-style creationism may not only slip
> past the academic publishers (as it has here), but also past the
> courts. The
> threat to science education is real. I urge you to take this threat
> seriously and meet it head on.
>
> Marty Rudin
>
> ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ======
> Dembski's DESIGN INFERENCE -- the inside dustjacket reads:
> (taken from Amazon.com)
>
> How can we identify events due to intelligent causes and distinguish
> them from events due to undirected natural causes? If we lack a causal
> theory, how can we determine whether an intelligent cause acted? This
> book presents a reliable method for detecting intelligent causes: the
> design inference. The design inference uncovers intelligent causes by
> isolating the key trademark of intelligent causes: specified events of
> small probability. Just about anything that happens is highly
> improbable, but when a highly improbable event is also specified (i.e.,
> conforms to an independently given pattern) undirected natural causes
> lose their explanatory power. Design inferences can be found in a range
> of scientific pursuits from forensic science to research into the
> origins of life to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. This
> challenging and provocative book shows how incomplete undirected causes
> are for science and breathes new life into classical design arguments.
> It will be read with particular interest by philosphers of science and
> religion, other philosophers concerned with epistemology and logic,
> probability and complexity theorists, and statisticians.
>
> "As the century and with it the millennium come to an end, questions
> long buried have disinterred themselves and come clattering back to
> intellectual life, dragging their winding sheets behind them. Just what,
> for example, is the origin of biological complexity and how is it to be
> explained? We have no more idea today than Darwin did in 1859, which is
> to say no idea whatsoever. William Dembski's book is not apt to be the
> last word on the inference to design, but it will surely be the first.
> It is a fine contribution to analysis, clear, sober, informed,
> mathematically sophisticated and modest. Those who agree with its point
> of view will read it with pleasure, and those who do not, will ignore it
> at their peril." --David Berlinski, Author of _The Tour of the Calculus_
>
>