Reflectorites
Here is an unwebbed (?) letter published in Human Events, September 15
issue. from former Reflectorite Ashby Camp.
Ashby: 1) draws a distinction between ID and creation science (Ashby is
himself a YEC); and 2) points out that science already "accepts the
proposition that intelligent design can be detected".
Ashby's conclusion is that: "The reason for this double standard is that
many fear the religious implications of such an investigation."
Can any non-theist on this List who denies that design can be detected,
honesty put their hand on their heart and disagree with this last point?
Or do they agree with philosopher Thomas Nagel, who, in his book, "The
Last Word (Oxford University Press, 1997) spoke of what he calls "the fear
of religion itself", which he believes may be "responsible for much of the
scientism and reductionism of our time, and who wrote:
"I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself:
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some
of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are
religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and,
naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no
God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be
like that." (p. 130)
Steve
==========================================================================
A Response to Priests
Of Scientific Orthodoxy
Leland Smith's criticism [August 25] of Joseph A. D'Agostino's "American
Scene" article titled "Science vs. Darwin" (June 2) is merely a continuation
of the propaganda war being waged against the intelligent design movement by
the priests of scientific orthodoxy.
He begins by falsely equating the intelligent design movement with creation
science. The former asserts only that the data of nature, particularly in
the biological realm, bear marks of intelligent design. It says nothing
about the designer except that he (or they or she or it) was intelligent,
and nothing about the means by which the design was implemented.
Creation science, on the other hand, appeals to the Bible as authoritative
revelation and seeks to interpret the data of nature consistently with that
revelation.
The difference between the two is clear and simple, yet countless apologists
for Darwinism keep forcing the comparison. Smith even goes so far as to
claim falsely that intelligent design involves a specific design scenario
that "closely resembles the creation stories of ancient religions."
Darwinists do this because casting intelligent design as a religious
movement makes it an easier target. It is about politics, not science or
truth.
Smith boldly declares that "intelligent design may exist but cannot be
examined for want of means." Now think about that. If there is no means to
discern whether something has been intelligently designed, on what basis do
paleontologists and archaeologists regularly conclude that markings,
structures, and various artifacts were intelligently designed?
Does not the search for extraterrestrial intelligence depend on the
assumption that intelligently generated radio signals can be distinguished
from naturally generated ones? Closer to home, can one determine by
studying Mount Rushmore that it was intelligently designed, or must one rely
solely on old news reports about its construction?
Obviously, the scientific community accepts the proposition that intelligent
design can be detected. So why does it cry foul when one hunts for design
in biological systems or in the cosmos? The answer offered by Smith is that
"we must insist that descriptions and explanations of life and our universe
be devised from our four senses of perception that can be tested by suitable
rigorous means." But if that criterion does not exclude from science other
hunts for intelligence, why should it do so in this particular case?
The reason for this double standard is that many fear the religious
implications of such an investigation. It is true that evidence of
intelligent design in life or in the cosmos may have religious implications,
but it is unbecoming of science to allow fear of those implications to cause
it to close its eyes by outlawing the investigation.
The role of science is to follow the evidence wherever it leads and let the
implications fall where they may. The intelligent design movement seeks to
restore true science.
Ashby Camp
Tempe, Ariz.
==========================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paley was not only right in asserting the existence of an analogy between
life and machines, but was also remarkably prophetic in guessing that the
technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of
anything yet accomplished by man. ... The almost irresistible force of the
analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent
in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design
hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally
a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the
contrary, the inference to design is a purely aposteriori induction based on
a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion
may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious
presuppositions." (Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett
Books: London, 1985, p.341)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 20:28:24 EDT