Mike:
You have us on tenterhooks!! Please proceed!
Vernon
Nucacids@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 10:05:10 EDT