Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

One of the things you will encounter with such an essay is that Denyse
and others with her perspective are increasingly using "intelligent
design" in place of "Intelligent Design", evidently in order to make the
distinctions between the ID movement and the broader ideas of
intelligent design less clear. I've said before that I view this as
deliberate and disingenuous. Denyse, as one who has adopted this
convention does not agree. She cites editorial license. I suggest a
loss of information (distinction in this case) as anathema to
conscientious editing. I frankly think this does not speak well for the
movement, if broadly adopted, and recommend that awareness of this trend
be extended in any informational treatment of the ID subject. JimA

Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Glenn, Denyse,
>
> Let's not forget that words have meaning, sometimes very technical
> meanings.
>
> I am reminded of Dick Bube's discussion of the term Creation in his
> 1971 essay, "We Believe in Creation"
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1971/JASA12-71Bube.html where he defended
> the use of the term "creation" and "creationist" yet distanced himself
> (and the ASA) from the young-earth creationist belief. Creation is too
> important of a Biblical concept to give up the term. Yes, we do still
> get lumped together with YEC's (and rightly so on the most critical
> questions), but that doesn't mean that we give up on the word or the
> attempt to clarify its meaning to the broader "secular" and/or
> atheistic audience.
>
> Perhaps someone needs to take the lead and write a similar essay, "We
> Believe in Design" where we explain our belief in this concept that
> flows directly out of the doctrine of Creation, but distances us from
> the more technical use of the term "Intelligent Design" by Dembski and
> company. (Of course, the ASA welcomes IDers to our membership and to
> the inter nos discussion, but not all of us share these views as is
> evident from our response and from our critiques.) No doubt, our views
> will be lumped together with the more limited views of Dembski, just
> because we use the term "design" and believe in a "designer". Perhaps
> this is all that Denyse is saying. But we can distinguish ourselves
> from the Dembski view.
>
> Personally, my goal in distinguishing myself from the YEC and the
> Dembski ID view (let me be clear that I'm not suggesting that they are
> the same thing) is to continue to make room for a fully theistic
> evolutionary view, where I will, when appropriate, talk about God's
> choice to create and uphold that Creation in whatever means he
> chooses, possibly using secondary causes such as evolution (broadly
> speaking). I will also talk about design. The universe is what it is
> because of God choice to make it that way--it reflects his purposes
> and designs. In my view, everything is designed. Of course, this is
> very different from Dembski's ID which wants to point to specific
> instantiations of design (usually to be used for apologetic reasons).
> In my debates with ID folks I *always* stress creation and design as
> being part of my view.
>
> I'm in full agreement with the view that we need to resist atheism and
> secularlism. But this debate is fundamentally a philosophical and
> theological debate--not a scientific debate. The scientific views that
> are being debated and that seem to be at the center of the more
> technical ID question are not the heart of the matter. That's why
> Christians (in the ASA and elsewhere) disagree over them. The belief
> that YEC or ID (in the technical sense) is in error does not negate
> the notion of Creation or Design.
>
> Once again, to say this is to risk being lumped together from the
> perspective of secularists with YEC and ID. So be it. But again we
> patiently try to clarify the issues and distinguish between science
> and philosophy/theology.
>
> I, and many others in the ASA who share my persuasion have offered to
> work with Phil Johnson, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Mike Behe, and
> others to resist philosophical naturalism and atheism, but nearly
> always they insist on a strategy that draws what we regard a dubious
> science into a central place in the debate. When we question this we
> labeled by the ID (technical) crowd as "compromisers", "brain-washed",
> "confused", "dozy", "irrelevant", "vacuous", etc. Their condition for
> working with us is that we remain silent concerning their questionable
> scientific claims in the interest of the bigger
> philosophical/theological claims. In the interest of truth, we can't
> do that.
>
> TG
Received on Sun May 22 14:15:16 2005