Reflectorites
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:17:35 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
WE>Among other fictions, there was this one:
Wesley gives credibility to my alleged "fiction" by the very words he uses.
His language (one could almost call it `body language') is that of a
threatened `priesthood' trying desperately to cling to power by any means,
but bereft of rational arguments, and having to rely on ad hominems and
`put-downs'":
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that
convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the
way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official
story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely
upon the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E.,
"The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 2000, p.141)
Well, it might work against some, but it won't work against me and other
IDers. Indeed it only makes us *more* convinced that Wesley's kind are
hiding something and *more* determined to continue with our critique of
naturalistic evolution!
I was reading this quote from Johnson the other day which might give
Wesley an idea of what he and his crowd are up against, i.e. " they [now]
have a determined adversary who is not going to surrender":
"PJ: The first New York Times story on the Kansas decision quoted
me as saying that this is the science educators' "Vietnam." What I
meant by this is that in the first place they have a determined
adversary who is not going to surrender. They're not gaining
ground. That's what the polls show, and that is why there is so
much worry. If the enemy keeps on fighting, he wears you down.
The second thing is that it is an adversary--that is, the
antiDarwinists--that can appeal to the liberal values of a lot of their
opponents, just as the Viet Cong appealed to the anti-imperialist
sentiments of the American public. The adversary can say, Let's
hear both sides, let's have an open discussion, you don't know the
majority position unless you have heard it effectively challenged,
and so on. Already the polls show that two-thirds of the public
favors something of the "teach both sides, teach the controversy"
direction. The Kansas decision is certainly going to encourage other
states and localities to do something like this." ("Evolution and the
Curriculum A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg
Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February 2000, No. 4.
http://www.eppc.org/library/conversations/04evolutioncurriculum.html)
In the same debate, Easterbrook acknowledged that while he thought the
evidence for design was weak, it "has an up arrow. It gets stronger with
each passing year";
"GE: Phil makes a good point there. There are really three subjects.
There is the materialist scientific position. There is the faith-based
spiritual position--we know this by revelation or by scripture. And
there is the newly evolved position--we find evidence of design
when we study the natural world. The latter is the one that gives the
scientific community the willies, the idea that we find evidence of
design in the natural record or in the natural law. Because if it is
just a matter of faith, people are entitled to their faith, regardless of
whether it's right or wrong. But if you've actually got evidence,
then you're arguing on science's own ground. I think that the
evidence right now for design is weak, but it is weak evidence that
has an up arrow. It gets stronger with each passing year.
So sooner or later Wesley's side are going to have to sit down and
negotiate an equitable settlement with their despised enemy. ID is not
going away and it is in fact getting stronger. The longer Wesley's side
continue this campaign of abuse and ridicule, the more humiliating is going
to be their inevitable climb-down.
[...]
>SJ>I suspect that what Wesley is really upset about is that Mike
>>Behe punctures his attempts to equate ID with YEC!
[...]
WE>I've long held nuanced views of the diversity among
>creationists. If Stephen can produce a quote from me that
>*equates* YEC and IDC, I'll be happy to publicly retract and
>clarify my position. Until then, I will consider Stephen's
>claim here to be evidentially vacuous, as so many ID claims
>seem to be.
I assumed (as I am sure most people did) that when Wesley's side uses the
term "IDC" (i.e. "Intelligent Design Creationism") they are trying to
*equate* "YEC and IDC".
In common usage (especially by the evolutionist side), "creationism" means
*young-Earth" creationism. Witness for example my recent post on how
the media continually defines "creationism" as believing the Earth was
6,000 years old.
If the "Creationism" in "Intelligent Design Creationism" does not mean
YEC, then what purpose does it serve? Especially since (as I have
repeatedly pointed out) there is at least one member of the ID movement
who is not even a theist.
[...]
>SJ>Sooner or later it might sink in to Wesley (and others)
>>that the ID movement is a *scientific* movement, which is
>>concerned with demonstrating the empirical evidence for
>>the existence of intelligent cause in the history of life,
>>and not for who the cause Agent or agency was.
[...]
WE>Yep, when the IDC's start publishing real scientific theories
>with real empirical research behind them, I'll realize that ID
>"is a scientific movement". This isn't a special burden for
>ID; many another avenue of scientific research has had to pony
>up some initial results before being generally accepted as
>*being* scientific. As for "sooner or later", judging by the
>effort that IDCs currently put into actual research making a
>positive case for ID, it looks like the timing will be "much,
>much later".
ID in its modern form has only just got started about 10-15 years ago.
There have been fledgling attempts to have ID material published in peer-
reviewed scientific journals (e.g. Behe M.J., "Correspondence with Science
Journals: Response to critics concerning peer-review," Discovery Institute
August 2, 2000. http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=450),
but these have been rejected on materialistic-naturalistic philosophical
grounds.
Since the materialist-naturalists completely control the peer-review process
and claim the power to determine what are "real scientific theories" by the
yardstick of their anti-design philosophy, the ID movement will probably
have to go over the heads of the scientific establishment.
Fortunately, because of the Internet, the scientific journals no longer have
as much power to censor dissent as they have in the past.
If the materialist-naturalists continue their ideological intransigence, they
are IMHO risking a split in science similar to the split in Christianity at the
time of the Reformation in the 16th Century, that was *disastrous* for
Christianity.
The idea that science could actually split in two or more parallel streams is
probably difficult for scientists to even imagine, but a historian would
probably have no trouble imagining it. History is full of examples of a
seemingly impregnable ruling elite refusing to tolerate dissent and
eventually being forced to by a popular revolt.
If the materialist-naturalists continue their anti-ID ideological intransigence
and science does split into ID - anti-ID streams, some of the publicly
owned scientific assets and resources now controlled by the materialist-
naturalists would become available to the ID movement. Then ID will be
able to fund research into ID science.
The same polls that show that 80%+ of the general public believe in some
form of creation, also show that 40% of *scientists* also believe in it. If the
above split does occur, there should will be plenty of scientists who would
like to work under the new ID paradigm.
Personally I think this split into ID - anti-ID is looking more and more to
be inevitable, but I wish to emphasise that this is only my personal view and
is in no way necessarily the position of the ID movement. I also wish to
emphasise that, like the Catholic-Protestant split of the 1500's, it will be as
*disastrous* for science as it was for Christianity. The much better solution
would be if the scientific establishment allowed ID to make its case on its
merits, through their scientific journals.
[...]
>SJ>Indeed, if Johnson denied membership of the ID movement to
>>Wells (on the grounds he had unorthodox views about Jesus
>>Christ), or to Mike Behe (on the grounds that he believed
>>in common ancestry), then Wesley would no doubt be among
>>the first to accuse Johnson of hypocrisy. The bottom line
>>is that it wouldn't matter what Johnson did. In the eyes
>>of Wesley and his ilk, Johnson would always be damned if
>>he did, and damned if he didn't!
WE>About this mindreading that Stephen attempts: Don't give up
>your day job, bucko.
Actually, at nearly age 54 I do intend to give up my "day job"
and retire as soon as possible! :-)
WE>Stephen apparently doesn't have enough
>in the way of real argument to counter what I say, and thus
>has to resort to these pathetic little fantasies.
I don't even *have* to have much "in the way of real argument" on this
point. Wesley's own *attitude* towards "Behe" and "Johnson", revealed
through his posts, is sufficient "argument" (res ipsa loquitur)!
WE>The fact of the matter is that Johnson's complacency is no
>evidence for or against Johnson holding or denying any
>particular stance, despite Stephen's argument-by-assertion.
[...]
Disagree. Common ancestry is an important issue for the ID movement,
but IDers personal religious affiliation is not.
That Johnson could show "complacency" towards Wells being a Moonie is
not really surprising because ID makes no claims to be a Christian
movement. So one could legitimately draw no conclusions about Johnson's
views about the Moonies from his acceptance of Wells in the ID
movement.
But Johnson's "complacency" towards Behe believing in common ancestry
is another matter. The ID movement *does* make claims to be a
*scientific* movement which is opposed to naturalistic evolution.
Since common ancestry is a major component of naturalistic evolution, one
*could* legitimately draw conclusions about Johnson's views about
common ancestry from his acceptance of Behe into the ID movement.
This is not to say that Johnson accepts common ancestry: my point was
that Johnson isn't necessarily against it. This is no secret, it is in Johnson's
own writings:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but
who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary
process instead." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.14)
and
"The subject of my essay was not "genealogical continuity," or
"common ancestry," or even "a gapless economy of creation." I
agree with Howard Van Till that concepts like these can easily be
incorporated into a genuinely theistic worldview. My theology does
not require that God create by what Van Till calls "theokinetic
acts," or by any other particular method. If God exists at all, He
could create by whatever means He chooses, whether or not the
choice pleases me, Van Till, or the rulers of evolutionary biology.
... Whether "genealogical continuity" in some sense unites all living
things is another question. Certain features, like the existence of
natural groups and common "junk DNA" sequences, support an
inference that there was some sort of process of development from
some common source. We may call that process "common
ancestry," but it does not necessarily follow that we are referring to
the ordinary process of reproduction that we observe in today's
world, where ancestors give birth to descendants very much like
themselves. (Johnson P.E., "God and Evolution: An Exchange,"
First Things, 34, June/July 1993, pp.38-41.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
and
"Since Hasker speculates about my own subjective leanings, I will
try to satisfy his curiosity. The "evolution of human beings from
apes" is not an unacceptable hypothesis for me. Obviously, God
could have made humans unmistakably distinct from other creatures
and did not do so. The hypothesis of LCA [Literal Common
Ancestry] was bold but justifiable as of 1859, if it were stated in
testable form rather than as a dogma. Subsequent investigation,
when evaluated without extreme Darwinist bias, establishes that
LCA is disconfirmed for the plant and animal kingdoms as a whole,
and also in this specific case. Even if "evolution" in some vague
MCA [Metaphorical Common Ancestry] sense should turn out to
be the true explanation of the similarities between apes and humans,
Darwinian science has only wild speculation to offer to explain the
unique human characteristics: relative hairlessness, upright posture,
and especially human consciousness. I do not know whether I am a
"progressive creationist." For the time being, I am content to say
that, however God chose to create, it was not by neo-Darwinist
LCA." (Johnson P.E., "Response to Hasker", Christian Scholar's
Review, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 1993, p.302)
So, as I said before, this does tend to further puncture the attempt
by Wesley & Co to, by the epithet "IDC", equate ID with *Creationism* .
If Behe can be still labelled a creationist and yet accept common ancestry
(as I do), then the word "creationist" has returned to it's original, broad
meaning:
"Creationism" means belief in creation in a more general sense.
Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that
simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex
forms including humans, are "creationists" if they believe that a
supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some
meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.4).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When evolution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant?
That now-living things have descended from ancestors, with modification,
over time? Or that the modifications came by chance, not by design? Or, in
addition, that all living things ultimately had the same ancestor? Or, still
further, that the "first living thing" had as its ancestor a nonliving thing?
Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory,
the view actually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate
inorganic ancestry, and modification through nonpurposive mechanisms: a
set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually
there, which consists largely of fossils that demonstrate *some* sort of
relationship and *some* sort of change over time." (Bauer H.H.,
"Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992],
University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago IL., 1994, p.65. Emphasis
in original)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 16:54:21 EDT