Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

I agree with both Pattle Pun (that many ASAers would consider themselves
supporters of either OEC or ID, if not both); and with Randy Isaac (that
Colson's rhetoric about evolution is simply over the top, and cannot help
efforts by ASA members to mediate public conversation about religion and
science).

However I also agree with Colson's claim that there are those in the
scientific establishment who will do their darndest not to discuss any
scientific problems related to evolution. This is esp true of those who see
some merit in ID criticisms related to the nature of scientific reasoning on
issues related to evolution--a topic that has always in general been a
legitimate part of scientific discourse itself. Darwin himself realised the
controversial nature of what he was suggesting, relative to the type of
explanation he offered, and he said that many fine naturalists of his own
generation would probably not be convinced. IMO, philosophical criticisms
of the structure of evolutionary theory and the raising of questions about
the efficacy of Darwinian mechanisms are appropriate to place within the
boundaries of science.

On the other hand, Colson would (I'm sure) reject my belief that ID has not
thus far provided an alternative science to standard evolution. That is, if
one wants people to teach ID, there is no "there" there to teach. There is
instead a set of sophisticated criticisms of standard evolution, coupled
with sophisticated suggestions about what an alternative conception might
say about the history of life--but no real theory that a working scientist
can latch onto instead of the standard interpretation. Thus, teaching ID at
this point in time can amount to no more than "teaching the controversy,"
that is, teaching students about questions that some scientists have raised
about the explanatory success of Darwinian evolution. That is a long way
from established science, but it is IMO established practice in science to
allow questions to be raised about the explanatory success of an established
theory in particular cases.

Given the history of people raising such questions about evolution,
however, it's easy to understand why the scientific establishment has little
tolerance for such questions, even though they ought to be more tolerant.
It's such an easy thing for Ham and company to extrapolate conversations of
that type into outlandish claims about natural history. And, given the
present politically driven strategy of the ID movement, they will just let
Ham and company get away with it.

Ted
Received on Thu Mar 31 12:13:58 2005