Bryan R. Cross <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
>Something I see quite often is the conflation of the scientific question
>you mentioned above with the theological question you mention here. They
>are two distinct questions. In my experience more critics of intelligent
>design confuse the theological and scientific questions (as you and Dave
>do here) than do proponents of ID.
I did NOT confuse the scientific and theological questions of ID but rather
pointed out that they indeed are different. In my reading of Dembski, he
goes to great lengths to show that ID is a scientific question, and on that
I agree. On the other hand, he then turns around and states all these
theological things that really have nothing to do with the scientific
aspect of ID. That is mixing the two, not I. It is obvious that most
readers of ID literature do not divorce the two, or shows like James
Dobson's Focus on the Family and other Christian radio shows would not be
so rash about putting all these ID people on their shows and conferences.
ID proponents almost all attack "Darwinism" and not just the philosophical
implications that those like Dawkins draw from it. If ID is just science,
it does not need to attack *Darwinian theory*. Most science works together,
even with all the different scientific perspectives and supposedly
conflicting theories. For example, when scientists debate things like
gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium in respected scientific journals,
after years of research and debate the answer usually ends up NOT being an
either-or situation but a melding of the two into a more cohesive
understanding of the way the natural world operates. Hence my earlier
questions to this list about whether ID and evolution necessarily have to
conflict, which the answers tended to be "no." (although you wouldn't know
that from Dembksi, he contradicts himself on this)
>On June 29 you wrote, "What the heck is this intelligent design theory
>anyway. I have heard it used for 4 years or so but have not the foggiest
>what it theorizes." In three weeks or so, you have apparently moved from
>ignorance concerning ID, to a sufficient understanding to make public
>pronouncements of ethical disgust.
Yes you are correct. Indeed I have. Students can take an entire semester's
worth of coursework in one 3-week summer session. And likewise, although I
do not consider myself now an ID expert, I have read enough to be familiar
enough to make those comments.
>found in various scientific disciplines (e.g. cosmology, biology)." I
>suggest you study ID a bit more before publicly making ethical
>pronouncements against it. Having studied both ethics and ID myself, I
I suggest you not make pronouncements about whether I have enough knowledge
and understanding to make comments about ID. I have studied it enough to
make such a pronouncement. It is an age-old question whether it is ethical
to attempt to prove God through scientific means. That is not a new
question, although IDers have given it a new twist. And the question of
scientifically testing God's presence has had ethical implications since it
first was thought about (long before ID came into the picture). I don't
have references for you, but I remember such discussions since I was a
child.
>do not see that the basic ID thesis exhibits any ethical transgression
>whatsoever.
Well that is probably why you are involved in it.
>proponents are intellectually honest or not, and will admit when they
>are wrong, is not the issue in question (although I believe that most of
>them are intellectually honest). The issue is whether the basic ID
Well that remains to be seen. If "they" were that honest, they should go
through accepted means of scientific inquiry which means peer review and
publication in respected journals.
>Only if Christian apologists have pinned God as the intelligent designer
>behind certain features of nature. Besides, ID proponents are not
Oh and you can be sure Phillip Johnson and other ID proponents have done
this, "confused" in the mind of Christians that the "intelligent designer"
and the Christian God.
>general, they firmly believe that all truth is God's truth. They want
>the truth, even if it 'hurts' their present religious views; even if it
And now, despite criticizing my use of the word "they" you are presuming to
speak for "them" as well? Perhaps you want the truth even if it hurts your
present religious view, but then you should use the word you and not they.
And I alsomight add that no one human will ever arrive at perfect truth.
One finds that letting go of one's need to absolutely know all truth is
more satisfying than seeking it like a bloodhound, which is a never-ending
battle that will never be achieved. Although I believe there is absolute
truth, one human will never achieve it this side of heaven. Letting go is
half the battle. Loving one another is the other.
My best,
Wendee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com ~~
~~ Environment/Travel/Science Writer ~~ www.greendzn.com ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the continent, a part of the main. -- John Donne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 12:18:29 EDT