On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:09:20 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
JR>As one sympathetic to but by no means (yet) persuaded by ID theory, I find
>nothing at all pejorative in what Howard has written.
That is because John is not on the receiving end! See my post to Howard
for my reasons why I say Howard's words are pejorative towards IDers.
JR>It appears that you're seriously misinterpreting his point: he's simply
>trying to be more precise, in order to move the conceptual conversation
>forward, and away from the name calling and fuzzy bombast which routinely
>predominate.
This doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In March 1999 Howard posted to the ASA
Reflector his questions about defintions od design and saying that ID
was based on an "artisan metaphor".
Then after *two months* of intensive debate, Howard comes on to the Calvin
Reflector and asks the same questions and again says that ID was based on
an "artisan metaphor"!
If this is "trying...to move the conceptual conversation forward" I would
hate to see Howard trying to slow something down!
When I posted Howard's questions on the ID list I am on, the response
was things like:
"Howard just keeps on doing this, no matter what you tell him" and "It's a
bottomless pit."
In short, the perception from the ID side is that Howard just wants the ID
debate to go around endlessly in circles getting nowhere.
JR>E.g., with a broad notion of "design" nearly -every- Christian believes in
>Intelligent Design.
Since theistic evolution Asa Gray said denial of design is "tantamount to
atheism", I would have thought that *every* Christian *must* believe in some
form of Intelligent Design!
JR>Given that ID isn't meant to include everything from
>evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution on the one hand to YEC on the
>other, the definition must be narrowed to capture what is proposed by ID
>theorists.
I disagree. ID does not exclude TE/ECs or YECs. The other list I am on has
IDers who range from TEs to YEcs and everything in between. Indeed, it even
includes people who are not even theists. The only thing that ID would exclude
are people who are hostile to the advancement of ID.
JR>From what I've read of Howard's comments, he is at least partly
>successfully doing just that without prejudicing the issues
>terminologically -- and that's no mean feat.
I would not have thought that Howard has been successful at all. What progress
was made if after two month's debate on the ASA Reflector he comes on this
Reflector with the same questions and stereotypes of ID.
JR>Of course, it'd be even nicer if ID thought leaders were participating in
>this discussion, as they have from time to time.
What would be the point of them participating here if they feel that Howard
and other TE/EC *really* don't want to advance the ID debate?
JR>But I can understand,
>frankly, that they wouldn't typically find this list worth their time.
>(Which makes Howard's contributions as a genuine EC thought leader all the
>more generous and appreciated.)
I would have thought that Howard's *lack* of *genuine* contributions is the
reason the ID movement has gone around him.
However, here is the chance for Howard to prove me wrong. I have posted my
definitions of "design" to this Reflector. It will be interesting to see
what Howard does with it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------