Re: My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

Here I totally agree with Ted, or he totally agrees with me!, that the age of the earth is a fundamental question.

If we don't , then we cannot have any sense over the changing appearance of life over the last 4 billion years classically seen in the fossil succession. After all trilobites appeared 550my ago and dinosaurs went extinct 65 my ago. There are many examples of changes over time eg horses in the tertiary , elephants over a similar time etc etc .For changes in elephants see p96-99 in Miller's finding Darwin's God. I also discussed this problem of geological time and design in my chapter in Debating Design ed Ruse and Dembski.
Until we grasp this historical succession which must form the starting point about any discussion of the origin of species whether by evolution or design/abrupt appearance. without this base line information theory, self-organisation is just whistling in the wind and irrelevant.

Consider the mess Angus Menuge got himself into at Kansas last spring as he would not commit himself over the age of the earth. As a result of that none of his ideas are worth any consideration, because he ignores/denies fundamental evidence. It is like trying to reconstruct a crime (eg the £53 million robbery in Kent last week) without working out the sequence of events.

No, Gregory , the age of the earth must be decided before discussing design.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: ASA
  Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:40 PM
  Subject: RE: My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

   
  "In order for ID to provide a plausible alternative to evolution, its proponents would have to address the one issue they least want to face: the age of the earth and the universe ." - Edward Davis (Winter 2006 Issue)
   
  This door has been identified repeatedly. Entering it is debatable and perhaps backward looking into the creation vs. evolution debate instead of forward looking into a scientific landscape that must sooner or later deal with the effects of information theory, studies in complexity, self-organization and (though it bothers me to say it) Dembski's specification-ism (which, as an aside, has not 'eliminated chance'). Why must ID make a theory on the 'age of the earth and the universe'? If (natural) scientists are not united in their views on this topic, then why must IDists be united on their views?
   
  If I were an IDist (which I'm not), I'd put off the question that apparently 'has to be addressed,' as long as possible. It would seem there are other ways to 'provide a plausible alternative to evolution' than to speak about origins of life (OoL). The process philosophy inherent in evolutionary theory, for example, is vulnerable too.
   
  "[D]iscussion of various philosophical objections to aspects of evolution that have been raised." - Ted
   
  Yes, this seems suitable for a philosophy of science setting. I have asked several times for scientists at ASA to help identify a boundary or boundaries around the acceptable usage of 'evolution.' The discussion has been minimal if not absent and I'm curious to know why. Will theistic evolutionists and/or evolutionary creationists say when and where evolution is fallacious? Surely there are many people who have spoken about 'those things that evolve' and 'those things that don't evolve' and I just have somehow missed them. It would be quite helpful if someone could point to such sources.
   
  Likewise, perhaps there is somewhere that describes/explains in summary the various 'philosophical objections to aspects of evolution' that Ted speaks about? Are these objections found only in philosophy or have they spread elsewhere in the academy?
   
  In the previous post (please excuse me for mixing the threads) I feel a bit misunderstood, though in agreement with Ted about tendencies to verbosity in sociology (of science). I didn't say or think he 'is' isolated by the scientific community. Instead I said, "Ted risks being isolated by the scientific community, which considers anthropology merely a 'soft science.'" If the topic is evolutionary anthropology, it is something quite different than evolutionary biology. If the topic is Darwinian evolution, it is much different than post-Darwinian evolution or evolutionary sociology. If the topic is ID = science it is quite different than ID = potentially philosophy of biological science or philosophy of anthropology. This is the concern.
   
  I appl aud Ted's attempts to cross/integrate disciplines and to help improve communication and understanding about (natural) science using a philosophy of science approach. It just seems that most people involved in the evolution-ID-creation debate are not privy to such historical-philosophical knowledge as Ted possesses.
   
  If Ted doesn't think that he's unique in the approach he's taking, then I'm sorry to rain on his parade by suggesting that he is unique. It may be that at ASA his approach is not new (i.e. separating 'science as science' from metaphysics). But in the broader field of scientists and philosop hers of science, I would still submit that his views are a welcome perspective.

  This is coming from someone who hasn't seen much integration of Christian views into his field of study, as they are taught in the mainstream. Even still, just this past Sunday an anomaly took place which serves as a reminder that gifts do indeed come in strange and wonderful places along the journey.
   
  Regards,
   
  G.A.

  Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
    David wrote:
     
    Ted -- this is really excellent, I think. I don't fully agree with the final paragraph, but it's a fair and refreshingly level-headed piece.
    I thoroughly agree with Ted's last sentence. I think when my article comes out this Spring in Teachers of Vision magazine I'll convert it to a Word file for easier reading. Trying to scroll up and down the page about wore me out.
    Dick Fischer
    ~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
    Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
    www.genesisproclaimed.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Wed Mar 1 18:06:10 2006