Do people on the ASA listserve take PJ and ID seriously? I think any
reasonable person would conclude that we do, otherwise why would we spend so
much time talking about his ideas?
The more important questions might be, where do we agree with Phil, and
where do we disagree? There is no single answer to either of these
questions that all on the listserve would endorse--I say that from knowing
many of the people who make posts; and I should add that some on the list
might not disagree much (if at all) with Phil. Someone like Larry, who
finds PJ and ID quite persuasive, might then ask someone who doesn't (such
as Keith or Howard and sometimes myself), why do we not find PJ and ID
persuasive? We've seen lots of answers to this one also.
I am quite sure that, because the ASA as a whole has not endorsed ID in
some official capacity--though there are those who see the booklet,
"Teaching Science..." as an endorsement--some ID people have been frustrated
with the organization. While I can understand why the failure to persuade
can be frustrating, it should be recognized that the ASA has provided PJ and
ID people with significant space, not only in the journal but also on the
program at several annual meetings, going back to Phil's talk at the 1990
meeting (I think it was that one) and going up at least as far as the major
ID symposium at John Brown two years ago. As program co-chair for 2002, I
have already been in conversation with some members about further
programming related to ID. (And I have myself proposed a session related to
ID at another, secular professional meeting, b/c I believe there is much to
talk about that merits our time.)
What frustrates me most about the ID controversy is the nature of the
rhetoric. Rhetoric certainly plays a legitimate role in helping to clarify
one's position relative to others--Howard Van Till's comments about language
in Three Views on Creation and Evolution are wonderfully appplicable here.
But for some rhetoric is used to belittle the sincerity and/or integrity
and/or intelligence and/or motives of those on one "side" or the other. And
rhetoric appeals to the general public far more than substantive arguments,
as we all know from watching political "debates". I think we aren't
helping matters any when many people get their "take" on origins issues from
the folks Howard calls "preachers of naturalism" (you can all fill in some
names, I'm sure) or from the folks who think all that theistic evolutionists
are "mushy" or weak-minded "accommodationists" (ditto).
This past spring we featured, at Messiah, public lectures by Ken Miller and
Mike Behe, slated less than one week apart. Though there were a few verbal
jabs both ways, generally I think the public got an excellent sense of why
those two scientists differ on how to interpret the evidence for/against
evolution and intelligent design. Their books aren't always on quite that
level, I will admit, but the talks were very well received by students and
the general public (hundreds turned out for each talk) and very definitely
raised the level of conversation about this very important and completely
legitimate subject.
Ted Davis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 14:49:07 EDT