From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 09:38:19 EDT
In response to Glenn, Josh wrote (selected excerpts follow)
> (Howard's comments imply strongly that ID is way off base in their
> criticisms. .....)
Josh, as soon as I sent that note I regretted doing so. As a stand-alone
statement, it was unnecessarily inflammatory. I have dealt with the ID
leadership (mostly Johnson and Dembski) for a dozen years, and my weariness
with their rhetorical slipperiness sometimes shows too clearly.
> Suggesting that those who remain
> skeptical of [evolutionary] explanations wanting in detail or mechanism are
only motivated
> by some other personal problem appears to be a way of discounting them
> rather than dealing with their criticisms.
As you know, I have also dealt at length with the details of ID arguments
(example: the E coli paper on the AAAS web site). There's no problem with
desiring more detailed (causally specific) theories. My criticism of ID on
this point concerns their tendency to discount good plausibility arguments
and to set the bar far too high for the credibility of scientific
explanations. That, in turn, opens the door to ID's argument from ignorance
strategy.
> I however, think that it is poorly represented for a journal of
> professional Christian scientists to consistently portray on its' email
> listserve that all scientists accept evolutionary scenarios with high
> confidence, and only the silly little IDers (who, of course, are actually
> politicians and followers of Reverend Moon -can we say Ad Hominem- rather
> than scientists) or uneducated bible literalists disagree. Maybe Howard,
> despite is Anti-ID campain, should quit belittling the criticism that ID has
> generated, regardless of their agenda or motivations.
Once again, I have not only commented on the motivation of the ID movement
(which is perfectly valid in the course of trying to understand the movement
itself) but I have also dealt with specific ID-science claims, especially
those of Dembski.
> -And how would Howard's comments appear to those still open/interested in
> the claims from those nasty "Iders?" I'll explicitly state that I'm not
> calling him egotistical, simply dogmatic. I'd prefer to challenge the fact
> that he dogmatically adhers to opposing ID at every possibility....
What may appear to you as "dogmatism" is perhaps the product of my long-term
engagement with ID claims and my growing frustration with repeated ID claims
that I find totally unsupported. Again, see the E coli paper on the AAAS
site
> -Well, I certaintly don't label myself as an anti-evolutionist. But I
> choose not to be a dogmatist either. But I do know that seeking for highly
> detailed causal explanations regarding the mechanisms for deriving
> biological features is not laughing matter, nor a criticism to be viewed
> simply as irrelevant.
I agree that seeking more detailed causal explanations is not out of place.
But exploiting present-day ignorance of detailed mechanisms as a means of
inserting claims for the need of supernatural interventions (under the
marketing label of "intelligent design") is not, in my estimation, the way
to go.
> Only after I read
> Richard Dawkins did I become quite hostile to the confidence and veracity of
> evolutionary "explanations." I do believe that some could hold to the
> theory with less dogmatic perserverance (clarification: I am not
> specifically citing anyone.) In fact I find Howard's discussions about his
> views being a carefully placed wager refreshing.
Thanks.
> His continual opposition to the followers of Rev. Moon is a little more
> suspect.
This comment puzzles me. I don't recall making a big issue of the Wells/Moon
connection.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 09:40:34 EDT