Turn to the Dark Side

MessageYesterday afternoon Dona & I saw "Revenge of the Sith," in which Anakin Skywalker is persuaded to turn to the Dark Side of The Force & become Darth Vader.
The parallel between that & Denyse's attempt to lure ASA over to ID is intriguiging. In particular, the notion that ID is the wave of the future & that ASA will disappear if it doesn't get on board sounds like Emperor Palpatine. But Denyse can't make lightning comes from her fingers. (No apologies for sarcasm here: Those who live by it die by it.)

There are at least 3 basic errors in the post below. 1st, it is not true that none of the "big sci orgs" don't care about the difference between ID & TE. Those involved with the AAAS DOSER (Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion) program certainly do. This was quite clear at the DOSER worshop on theology, education & public policy workshop in which I participated in January 2004.

2d, there is no justification for saying that the "big sci orgs" are interested in TE only to the extent that they can misrepresent it.

3d, Denyse doesn't seem to realize that that while the phrase "theistic evolution" of course covers a variety of views, there are theologically substantive versions of TE. This is shown by the statement on p.244 of her book that a "Christian evolutionist ... must be content with a God who is _not_ there, except as an emotional experience." This shows that she misunderstands not only many proponents of TE but the traditional doctrine of providence.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Denyse O'Leary
  To: glennmorton@entouch.net ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:28 AM
  Subject: RE: Today's blogs 2

  Thanks for your kind support, Glenn.

  In fact I respect ASA and its work.

  That is why I said what I did.

  ASA has made a big error in my view, in not grandfathering the ID controversy but rather trying to defend "theistic evolution" over against ID when the big sci orgs that have all the power and influence don't really care much about the difference between the two - except when they can misrepresent TE to try to disarm all ideas of design, meaning, or purpose in nature. ("Joe Schmoe is a scientist who calls himself a Christian but realizes that science and faith are completely separate." = science is truth and faith is nonsense. That is why they are separate. If they were both really true, they could not be separate because they would have to both inhabit reality and there are not two realities.)

  So the real controversy is, who gets to say what science is?

  If there is evidence for God's work in nature, can that evidence be admitted, or is the evidence itself actually anti-science?

  Controversies like Kansas are simply a proxy for that question because it is a question about who gets to say what science is.

  cheers, Denyse

  --
  Read brief excerpts from my book, By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe (Augsburg Fortress, 2004) at

  http://www.designorchance.com/press.html

  Study Guide:
  http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b088sk.htm

  Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806651776/qid=1109790930/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8617533-8799957?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
  My blog:

  http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
  (go to other blogs from here)

  Denyse O'Leary
  Tel: 416 485-2392
  Fax: 416 485-2392
  oleary@sympatico.ca
  www.designorchance.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of glennmorton@entouch.net
    Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:10 AM
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    Cc: glennmorton@entouch.net
    Subject: RE: Today's blogs 2

>... ASA FAILED to grasp the opportunity to sponsor the ID controversy.

>SO the Discovery Institute got a foothold and now Discovery is setting the agenda.

>ASA has become a forum for the people who are left behind.

>Frankly, I do not care whether you listen or not. Lots of organizations just wither. But I did think I ought to warn you
>that that is happening.

>If you see any future for yourselves, begin by involving more ID mavens in your inner circles so you can adopt and
>manage the controversy, instead of just being biffed around by it and writing plaintive letters to whoever about how
>you are misrepresented in journals.

>My guess is that ASA has about three years to do something smart like that, and then it won't matter any more
>whether it does or not.

>Cheers, Denyse

>P.S.: I speak frankly because, as a journalist, I don't qualify for mem'ship in ASA and tend to blow clear of non-media-
>pro orgs anyway (to avoid potential conflict of interest). So I can't benefit from association with you, but thought I
>would help by warning you. If not, just forget it. - d.

    Denyse is telling the truth. The ASA is impotent and is left behind(search the archives where I said this or something like it several years ago). They blew it on design. I would disagree with one thing. I personally think it is already too late because the medicine (design) is far too distasteful to the membership.

    I have run groups responsible for tens of millions of dollars of investments. I know a thing or two about how the world works and how it doesn't. One doesn't get anywhere in the world by "writing plaintive letters to whoever about how you are misrepresented". If you have to do that, you have already lost the game. RIP ASA
Received on Tue May 24 11:42:57 2005