Perhaps it is time to help get the best possible ID tree
planted. The tree is growing and will continue to grow whether
we like it or not, and this tree is apt to be the plant that is
looked at as representing the evangelical community. We as
evangelical scientists on the ASA are positioned in a unique time
and place to help nourish a better tree (and that does not mean
that we need to like that variety of tree [there is a
rationalism/empiricism that I don't like in the tree but it is
the only new variety growing in my garden and I still want it to
bring honor to that garden] - but perhaps we can remove some of
the obvious blemishes that will make our garden look better) -
and maybe, just maybe, the tree will draw in some folks in from
the surrounding forest of agnostic science to take a look at the
new and different variety and see possibilities for a new and
different kind of woods. Unfortunately getting plants to grow
takes work and even this response takes time I really don't have.
It always takes me longer than I wish to respond, and there is
too much to do - YET I am committed as I think most of us are to
the idea of having evangelical scholars have an impact on our
culture. The recent exchanges between Paul N., Eduardo M., and
Glenn M. started me thinking and let me share few things. It is
obvious that Paul Nelson and some other IDers will, "submit a
couple of papers on the topic [homology], and complete a book MS
(part of which deals with homology). But the only thing worse
than not offering a hypothesis for an interesting open problem is
offering a half-baked, incomplete one. On the Internet."
(Nelson's ASA post of: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 17:23:10 -0600 (CST))
And now for the setting (as I lay aside those recommendations and
syllabi) before I raise the question which is the real point of
this post: How do we help nourish or remove some of the
blemishes from the tree?
Brother Eduardo G. Moros a bit earlier (03:11 PM 1/2/98 -0600) wrote:
> We need competing theories, it promotes radical thinking and competition.
> We all may learn something from these new theories and the debates
> that are raging -- I already did.
and
>To cut a tree down to plant another one in its position one
> needs to uproot the old tree first, work the ground and then
> plant the new tree. I like this metaphor to explain
> the current approach of IDers. [and I think he rightly
sees Gould as developing a new tree.]
While I am not sure we are giving it garden space, even brother
Glenn M. agrees that the tree needs to be planted saying (on Fri,
02 Jan 1998 21:56:06 -0600) in response to Eduardo:
> You can also plant a tree far from the present one. You don't have
> to chop down the old one first. But you MUST PLANT A TREE, not simply
> talk about how sick the old one is.
And now my response. I think the ID tree is growing too much as
a seedling that blew over the wall. If ID has a chance at
becoming a new paradigm, if only in Christian circles, now in its
early growing stages is when the rest of us can provide input
that is more apt to get a better tree growing. One of the
things that worries me is that the ID folks (even though
including reputable scientists) may too often see us as
hostile as the secular world out there. And yet Thomas Kuhn and
the Post Modern culture have given us an opportunity not present 15
years ago to foster new and radical Christian paradigms [with of
course the danger that goes with any new paradigm of being
scoffed at by the established theory]. And yet with the
exception of chemists (Thaxton, Maatman, Behe) doubting
spontaneous origin of life, it is Marxists like Gould that dare
to question the dogma or in Christian circles it is California
lawyers, who have done their homework or philosophers like Alvin
Plantinga and not scientists that are questioning (in an
attention-getting manner) the secularism of the neoDarwinian
established science. Part the difficulty in hearing thoughtful
Christian voices of course is the grip of established University,
which as George Marsden has said, moved from Protestant
establishment to established non belief. But their grip is not
as strong in this electronic age and in this postmodern culture I
think there is a unique opportunity to have an impact.
Some suggestions:
1. We need to have more organizations of an obvious Christian
commitment and with a reputation for good science. Or perhaps we
need to use the ones we have to establish a reputation and
visibility. Our garden needs to be known as a great garden or gardens
with a Christian nametag. Christian philosophers have done that
and their organization has had an impact that I don't see often in the
sciences. Yet this is harder to do in the sciences. I fear the
empirical nature of our science makes it difficult to justify
more academic professional groups or will tend to minimize the
impact of those that exit. And it is even tougher when many of
us can separate our science entirely from our Christian roots.
While there is some truth in such objectivity and even
normativeness in excluding variables, our core beliefs do affect
us in at least opening our eyes to new possibilities. While Mike Behe
might have been skeptical of spontaneous origin of life as a secular
scientists, without his faith, I doubt if he would have risked his
academic reputation to publish what he has.
And on the non-Christian side, I suspect Gould would not
have shaken up the scientific world if more radical world and
life view had not encouraged different thinking.
And yet our rationalism is so strong that I suspect Gould thought
his personal beliefs were not relevant to his theory since
I never heard of Gould's Marxism from any reading of
Gould. Another illustration where core beliefs may have
had a profound effect is that of Harold Bold on classification
of plant groups. I suspect he had a Christian commitment.
Yet the only indication of that possibility is his talking about
science as not having to be mechanistic and his mention that belief
in a deity is not seen by all scientists to be incomptable with
evolution. While these illustrations may imply that you can
have more of an impact if your religious commitment is never
mentioned in your science, I still think that such a separation
works against our Christian impact and wish that at the minimum
more of the evangelical Christians in the major Universities were
more open about being scholars whose Christianity has had a
profound impact on their lives (in that regard a Cliff Christians
at the U. of Illinois or a Keith Miller at Kansas come to mind as
two who are visible as scholars and Christians). We probably
will never gain back the Soul of American University - but we can
establish a more visible presence. Of course as a Christian of
reformed persuasion, I would like to see scholarship driven and
integrated with faith even in the empirical sciences. But much
science (most of the new plants in the garden) occurs at the
University level and with perhaps the exception of a Notre Dame,
I see little practical hope of a Christian University. Still maybe
the Christian undergrad
colleges (the Wheaton's Calvin's, Dordt's Taylor's etc.) could do
more to establish a presence - but what exactly I am not sure.
If anyone has good ideas of what these sorts of colleges, which
includes mine can do by all means share them back to ASA.
2. My last point wandered a bit so I will try and keep this one
more focused. We need to provide the forum and support where
Christian ideas can flourish and develop so they can come out
(our trees grow) with some rigor. This is probably the main
reason for this whole post, because I don't think the ASA list
helps here and I think it could be an asset. The main problem as
I see it is that the TE folks that dominate conversation on this
group are so busy defending their part of the garden that other
ideas don't feel part of the garden. Now defending your own part of
the garden is important and good in the development of Christian
perspective but listening and providing input to other parts is
also critical. In all fairness, other parts of ASA (the ASA meetings,
our journal and newsletter) are I think giving a good forum for
exposure of ID to us and giving them feedback. Still even if it were not
a bit of a hostile environment this group is too public for germinating
ideas (try a search engine on a member of this group and all your
old posts show up - to the whole world [which of course doesn't
mean that anyone reads them - but that gives me pause even now]).
Still I would like a Paul Nelson to post for this group and get
several cell biology and or embryology types (not just his ID
crowd) to be part of a smaller group to read his articles before
they are out in public. None of us are experts in all areas but
if he would use our strengths Paul could perhaps have a stronger
initial set of articles. Getting all the obvious error out
before ideas are published really helps the impact. One of the
reason Phil Johnson, as a lawyer, could be sure his science
homework was right, is that he had folks that knew the area look
at the manuscript before it was published. But then would we have
the time or luxury of even doing this? If it were not Christmas
break, I could not have afforded to spend most of the afternoon
on this [I am slow but]. And I was asked once by a prominent
Christian scholar to give him feedback - but the press of
teaching over 150 students in a small college kept me from
finishing it.
3. Can this become more of a forum that is seen as useful to the
Christian community? ASA currently has [I just checked] 172
subscribers and similar group for Christian geologists ACG-l has
93. Both of those numbers sound pretty good till I look for my
colleagues on the ASA list find only myself and a former Prof
(Russ Maatman) are on it and in the case of Calvin could only
find 3 (4 if you include Terry G., who is no longer there). I
may have missed some who are getting this list via AOL, yet it
seems to mean that at Christian Colleges it will be hard to
affect any of the institutions via this forum because too few are
part of this dialog. Perhaps the ASA listserv will have limited
penetration as long as this is a chatty (noisy) group. That may
indeed be a real strength of the group but it inevitably produces
a filtering problem.
4. My other comments could be taken too negatively. Let me
hasten to add that this forum, like other e-mail groups, has been
very helpful to me in providing a useful community. In this case
hearing other Christians (I lurk more than post) showed me that
more of us are around and made me appreciate other Christian
positions than my own.
Sorry about putting a number of things together. Each could be expanded
into a separate post and probably be better for it. But I really have to
get on to those other things so I will zmodem this from my IIgs to the
mailer at Dordt and see if I can still get a couple of things done this
evening.
-- James F. Mahaffy e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.eduBiology Department phone: 712 722-6279Dordt College FAX 712 722-1198Sioux Center, Iowa 51250