Re: Criticisms (was Cambrian Explosion)

From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 14:05:49 EDT

  • Next message: Sondra Brasile: "Re: Sin?"

    Bob wrote:

    “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 guess this is my attempt to initiate some type of “regular” status for
    myself as I wish to contribute opinions and ideas that expand the
    representation of views that are expressed on the listserve. This way the
    unsuspecting bystander will get a better impression of the views held by
    “Christian scientists.” I have been participating here for approximately a
    year now and look forward to becoming more involved in the discussions.

    “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.”

    -And I have learned from these criticisms. I specifically do not think that
    detailed explanations is a criticism that is off the mark. I clearly am
    more open to their arguments than many here, but I do not feel that they are
    above criticism or improvement.

    “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.”

    -I personally see no problem in correcting the errors and dispelling the
    inaccurate science used to support YEC. However, in an attempt to convince
    a group of people with limited science background, committed to a view of
    scripture, developed arguments of science are required. Do you see
    something wrong with that? Folks untrained in science and committed to YEC
    are going to have a difficult time in fully grasping the nuances of
    developed scientific evidence which makes their position largely untenable.
    Try to convince someone of the evolutionary relationship between monkeys and
    man as witnessed by Alu elements and retroviral insertions without them
    understanding what a genome is exactly. I think the situation will not
    resolve itself overnight, nor do I have 100% confidence that YEC is
    completely false. Science isn’t omniscient, and there is some chance (weak
    as it may be) that the Earth is young and our powers of understanding is
    misled somehow (although I would not defend that position except to say that
    it is possible.)

    _________________________________________________________________
    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 14:06:54 EDT