From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 11:48:32 EDT
In his criticism of a message posted by Howard Van Till, Josh Bembenek
writes:
> 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 ... or uneducated bible
literalists disagree.
I think it is important to separate the ASA journal from the listserve,
which is a separate operation with a different end. ASA articles are
peer-reviewed and undergo a scrutiny before being accepted for publication.
Listserve postings are not, and they generally go through unless the
listmaster deems them beyond the pale. Our postings, as is the case on any
listserv, express personal opinions (as well as information) subject to
criticisms, which is just what Josh is doing. Most of us regulars have done
some "backing and forthing" with one another, and that is to be expected. I
think we try to maintain a higher level than a chatroom squabble, and try to
be conscious of the fact when our decibel level begins to creep up, though
none of us are perfect.
As to the content of Josh's message, I'm not certain that I would agree with
his characterization, even allowing for his rhetorical hyperbole (which I am
not criticising, just noting). My criticisms of ID arguments and positions,
like those of Howard's, are aimed at what I see are flaws in their basic
assumptions and arguments. I also include analyses of their rhetoric, which
is an essential component of their argumentation; and I have raised
questions about their theological motivations, which most of the time they
seem desirous to conceal. I agree with Howard that it is appropriate to
address the latter.
As to young earth creationists, I have noted in various postings a level of
exasperation on the part of many of us, including myself. One major reason
is that the YECs continue to put forth claims as scientific evidence that
are simply unsupportable (either for six-day creation or against evolution),
but they keep on making them. In my view they have allowed their ideology
(and that is what it is, in my view) to trump scientific evidence in as
dogmatic a fashion as some of the more vocal scientific materialists. It is
hard not to engage in criticisms that border on harshness when they are for
the most part (not entirely, to be sure) deaf to any legitimate criticism of
their arguments. And, from my own experience, it seems to me that the YEC
message is in fact aimed primarily at Bible literalists who are not well
educated in science and less able to examine their claims either with
impariality or because they have become fearful of mainstream science as a
threat to their faith. That is one reason why I and many others see their
program as harmful both to Christianity and to science. I think the
Dawkinses and Dennetts need to be answered, and forcefully, but I must say
that I am more concerned with some of my brothers and sisters in Christ
whose anti-evolution approaches are wrong-headed and fractious.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 11:48:48 EDT