>From: Nucacids@aol.com <Nucacids@aol.com>
>What Becomes of ID?
>
>It is commonly thought that ID is nothing more that some
>form of reactionary religious response to the truth of the
>neo-Darwinian worldview. Neo-Darwinism, after all, represents
>the crown jewel of the non-teleological, reductionist approach
>to life. Some religious people, it is said, make their peace
>with neo-Darwinism and sequester their God to the
>empirically undetectable realm. But it is also said that
>there are the religious die-hards, who think their God needs
>a job or will otherwise become superfluous. Thus, they
>look for gaps in Nature and seek to find a job for their
>God among those gaps.
>
>And such, I think, is the most common perception
>about basic dynamic behind the existence of ID.
>Put simply, it's the last gasp of a dying form of
>theistic interventionism. A polished, but still
>inherently flawed, form of creationism.
>
>Now, I suspect this perception is accurate for
>some, maybe many or even most. As I participate in some
>debates about this issue, and more importantly, as I lurk
>and watch many others, I do indeed think much of the noise
>is simply about theists and atheists using a different language
>to carry on the alt.atheism type debates that most cyber-surfers
>have probably seen at one time or another. And even if you don't
>quite fit into the context, if you participate, it's easy to get
>caught in their cross-fire.
>
>If I am correct, then what does the future hold for ID? Let's
>say that ID has played its strongest cards - Dembski's EF/CSI
>and Behe's IC. Both cards are played such that they are supposed
>to compel any rational person into accepting ID. But if we survey
>the response of their skeptics, it would clearly appear that they
>have thus far failed. An army of skeptics, who are certainly
>not irrational, have either rejected these cards or found them
>seriously inadequate.
>
>Now, I suppose the arguments can be strengthened in the future,
>and periodically various scholars or scientists may join the ID
>"movement," but if that was their best shot, what becomes of ID?
>Will ID always remain marginalized? Will ID find its home only
>among those with fundamentalist-like religious leanings? After all,
>as those gaps keeping getting smaller and smaller, it is going to be
>harder and harder to find a job for God, right?
>
>I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of ID critics would
>respond "yes" to these questions. I think most ID critics think
>that in the future, ID will be viewed by historians as nothing more
>than a desperate last attempt to resurrect some form of theistic world
>view that finally gives way to a non-teleological viewpoint that
>will forever reign.
Hello Mike. With the exception of your statement about "alt.atheism type
debates" (which cannot be true, as many of the strongest critics of ID are
theists), I think you've summed up the attitude of ID critics well. (Of
course, I recognize that there are some ID proponents, like DNAUnion, who
are not religious. But they're in a small minority. The CRSC, to which all
the major proponents of ID belong, has a declared theistic agenda.)
>I think, however, there is a very good chance the future will
>be very different. That is, even if the current ID arguments are not made
>any more rigorous than they are today, I think some form of teleological
>viewpoint, probably including something like current ID, will gain
>a strong foothold in the future and spread much farther than any current
>ID critic can imagine. And not just among the uneducated. Am I really
>that naïve? Am I really such a true-believer? Is it really that hard for
>me to wake up and smell that coffee?
I think I can say quite safely that ID will not become a major position
among the scientific community here in Europe in any imaginable future. As
far as the USA is concerned, other posters are in a much better position to
judge than I am. But I think that ID's only hope is to capture the
non-scientific community first, and then create a new scientific community,
through the replacement of today's scientists with new ones. I just cannot
see how the average scientist of today could be persuaded by ID's phoney
arguments.
>Well, I hope I am not that naïve, I'm not really a "true-believer"
>on this issue, but I do confess to not drinking coffee. Nevertheless, I
>can "see" a very different future than the ID critic and it doesn't even
>depend on some sensational ID break-through.
>
>It's just in the cards.
>
>Shall I explain?
I would be very interested in reading your scenario. I've always enjoyed
science fiction. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
PS Well done for putting that diaeresis on the word naive. I bet that took
some work!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 05:03:00 EDT