>From: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@mtcnet.net>
> But many of the ID folks are good scientists with established records of
> doing good science. (e.g. Behe in biochemistry and Dembski in
> mathematics and philosophy).
I would question the equation, Math + Philosophy = Science
> The fact that they can speak as
> established scientists does do a lot for their influence.
Yes, when the spokespersons of a movement present themselves as "established
scientists" and tell people what they want to hear, the hearers are likely
to bask in the warmth of reassurance.
> The fact that
> they generally think the neoDarwinian synthesis is flawed probably is
> also important in giving them an audience among evangelical seminaries
> and churches in a way that ASA can not because it may be perceived
> (rightly or wrongly) as compromising too much with a secularizing
> neoDarwinian philosophy.
Yes, the anti-evolution attitude that prevails in evangelical seminaries and
in the numerous churches influenced by them sets the stage for the welcome
that ID's anti-evolution rhetoric has been given.
By failing to distinguish between the scientific concept of evolution and
reckless extrapolations from evolution to naturalism, the ID movement
perpetuates the misperceptions prevalent in evangelical Christianity's
concept of both evolution and naturalism's use of evolution.
Anyone who tries to correct those misperceptions is trying to do the
intellectual/sociological equivalent of pushing a stream of water uphill
(without benefit of a pipe).
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 10:56:36 EDT