>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.
[snip]
>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.
[snip]
>3. Can this become more of a forum that is seen as useful to the
>Christian community? [snip] ...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.
As one of the "defenders" I would like to make a comment. I applaud your
very thoughtful outline here. It is obvious that you have put a lot of
thought into this.
In my response, I would assume that
1. Everyone wants to have a Tree which accounts for the vast majority of
the facts.
a.this assumes that everyone wants to minimize the number issues whose
solution must await future discovery.
b.this assumes that everyone believes that matching observational
data is a goal to which the theory must aspire.
2. That no one can get their minds around the entirety of mankind's
observational data
3. Theory development requires feed back that the theory developer may not want.
4. The theory developer wants to avoid the embarrassement of spending years
on a given viewpoint only to present it to the world and have some simple
observational data destroy the theory immediately or have it collapse under
a thousand factual cuts.
Because of the above considerations, I can think of only one better place
for theory development than a place like the ASA and that would be Talk.Origins.
The reason for this is the best place to forge ideas is in the middle of a
hostile environment. I would not hold the views I do if, while a YEC, I had
not had several years of people (friends, enemies, colleagues) telling me
that what I was suggesting was contrary to fact. Some would tell me that
what I was saying was just plain silly. And it was. One cannot learn what
needs to be explained by withdrawing from the fire. I would expand Paul's
statement by amendment. "But the only thing worse than not offering a
hypothesis for an interesting open problem is offering a half-baked,
incomplete one. ANYWHERE."
And if you withdraw to a comfortable group that won't challenge you, you may
offer a half-baked account.
Secondly, not all theories are worth spending a lot of time on. If the goal
is to have an impact on secular/scientific life, then we must be willing to
accept the problems that are pointed out and attempt to fix them or dump the
theory. The theory developer must not ignore observational evidence contrary
to his thesis, and he is only likely to find that evidence in a 'hostile'
environment. I have a friend who believes that the universe is old but the
solar system is 6000 years old. He has planted his tree and hopes by this
manuver to avoid the problems with astronomical data. But he does not want
to hear about the isotopic evidences for an old solar system, nor is he
interested in the vast geological problems for an old earth. A comforting
environment for this theory is not going to help this tree grow and gain
acceptance.
Finally, there is the really tough problem of methodology and epistemology.
There are two aspects to this. First, in the ID camp, as well as in other
anti-evolutionary views, there is a significant suspicion that scientists of
the evolutionary persuasion are not capable of telling the truth. You can
find statements over and over to the effect that the scientists are only
believing [fill in the blank] to further his career or gain favor with
others. Because of this, there is a significant difference of opinion about
what the facts are. And until this issue is resolved, I don't see an easy
solution to the problem.
Secondly, there is the theological issue of whether a person's
interpretation of Scripture should be placed in a position of greater
importance than observational data. I phrase it the way I do because I would
say that Scripture should be placed higher, but my interpretation of
scripture should be placed lower. To place my interpretation of Scripture
equal to scripture is to make myself out to be God. Until this issue is
resolved, (a very unlikely event) one will find a reluctance among some
theory developers to accept observational data as problematical to their view.
Given these problems, it would do us no good to provide a comforting
environment for theories which are contrary to observational data. The
biggest favor we can provide (whether they like it or not or even agree that
it is a favor) is to point out problems. Only then do they even have an
opportunity to fix the problem. But this is not pleasant for the theory
developer. I don't like it when someone tells me my deodorant failed, or
that I have something hanging from my nose, nor did I like the years of my
colleagues telling me my YEC views were simply wrong. But they did me a
favor by informing me. Similarly, theories need this feed back also. To fail
in this effort is to be like the Emporer's ministers who failed to point out
to the king that he was naked. I am sure that the Emporer did not like
hearing the truth from the child, but he needed to hear it everybit as much
as we need to hear our own observational/theoretical mismatches.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm