Terry:
>Heads up on this piece by Eugenie Scott in the latest Science (on the web
>at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5467/813).*
Hi Terry,
A few excerpts from Eugene Scott's piece.
Scott:
>But nonliteralist Christians (about 50% of the American population) are
>being reached by a newer creationist movement, "intelligent design
>creationism" (IDC), that advocates the idea that evolution (and modern
>science in general) are stalking horses for philosophical materialism
>and atheism. IDC stresses existential issues, claiming that if evolution
>is true, there is a substantial price to pay in loss of purpose and
>meaning of life. Although they rarely express traditional creationist
>positions on a young age of the Earth, IDCs echo their predecessor's
>claims that evolution is a theory in crisis, which scientists are
>rapidly abandoning.
Bertvan:
Most of Scott's piece is the usual denunciation of YEC's. People who
believe in a literal translation of the bible have been around for centuries,
and haven't interfered with science for quite a while. Nevertheless, there
are no shortage of valiant warriors like Scott to pursue the noble battle
against them. Most people interested in "design" use the term ID. However
Scott insists upon adding a C. Having depicted all critics of "random
mutation and natural selection" as ignorant religious bigots, she is not
going to let these new critics get by with claiming they aren't
"creationists", regardless of what they say.
Scott:
>Some IDC proponents are also deliberately targeting intellectuals. IDC
>leader Phillip Johnson has published opinion pieces (opposite the
>editorial page or "op-ed") in the New York Times, the Wall Street
>Journal, and other major national media. An IDC think tank in Seattle,
>the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, supports several postdocs
>who organize conferences on university campuses and write op-ed pieces
>and books in an effort to persuade the intellectual elite that IDC and
>"theistic science" are legitimate scholarly enterprises.
Bertvan:
Horrors! If not only the ignorant - but now the intellectual elite -- start
questioning her unquestionable dogma, what will the poor woman do? (Any
concept that no one is allowed to question is a dogma, isn't it?) Neither
Scott nor anyone else knows whether the universe was designed or the
accidental result of random processes, but rest assured Scott is determined
no one shall construe discussion of the matter as a "legitimate scholarly
enterprise".
Scott:
>Although IDCs agree on the philosophical issues, when it comes to the
>scientific issues, they are vague--and very much disunited.
Bertvan:
IDs agree on philosophical issues (the possible existence of plan, purpose,
intelligence, design). Those "evolutionists" who defend "random mutation
and natural selection" ( definite non-existence of plan, purpose,
intelligence, design) aren't??? IDs are vague and disunited!! On the other
hand Darwinists like Gould and Dawkins and E.O. Wilson have nothing but
praise for each other. And unlike ID, Darwinism is explicit! All life
descended from one common ancestor. Or was it five? Or maybe ten? Or who
knows how many? How did evolution occur? Mechanisms aren't important, Scott
assures us -- except no one is allowed to criticize "random mutation and
natural selection" - not publicly, anyway. The fact is, "random mutation and
natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution" is that only aspect
of "evolution" that most IDs do criticize. If "random mutation and natural
selection" is not the center piece of "evolution", all "evolutionists" have
to do is publicly admit they have no idea how evolution occurred. But how
could they possibly admit such a thing in the classroom??
Scott:
>. Two
>ideas not already present in creation science have emerged from IDC:
>biochemist Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" (developed in his
>book, Darwin's Black Box) and philosopher William Dembski's "the design
>inference," the subject of his book of the same name. Behe argues that
>natural selection is incapable of explaining certain kinds of complex
>molecular structures that supposedly would not function without a
>minimal number of interacting components; hence, we must seek an
>"intelligent" (divine) explanation. Dembski claims that a logical
>procedure heavily dependent on probabilities can filter out designed
>phenomena from those produced by either natural processes or chance.
>Scientists and philosophers have examined these concepts and have found
>them wanting.
Bertvan:
Behe specifically claims he is not a creationist, but Scott is not going to
let him get by with calling himself ID. It's IDC, regardless of what he
says. And anyone examining "random mutation and natural selection" and
finding it wanting is neither a scholar nor a gentleman. And they are
deceitful too!! Claiming not to be creationists!!!
Scott:
>: if scientists
>do not oppose antievolutionism, it will reach more people with the
>mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak, and further, that
>scientists are clinging to it only because of a previous commitment to
>atheism--and perhaps a selfish desire to keep the grant money flowing.
>The subsequent further reduction of scientific literacy (to say nothing
>of a decline in confidence in the scientific community) is not something
>we should passively let happen.
Bertvan:
If anything causes a decline in confidence in the scientific community, it
will be this silly determination to battle everyone who criticizes random
mutation and natural selection and call them a "creationist". That, and the
reluctance of biologists to admit how much they don't know.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 18:48:04 EDT