RE: My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

  Hello Charles,
   
  Appearing at the foreground of the ID-eVo-creation conversation is the comparison of scientific ideas, theories, experiments, data, courtroom trials, school board nominations and reorganizations, textbook printing, etc. In the background, however, is a bid for legitimacy, what counts as ‘science’ (that ‘brand new’ conversation!) and what is the place of science in society. Evolution is used as a theory in natural sciences (including applied sciences), social sciences and humanities. ID is said to have “implications for virtually all humane studies” (M. Behe). Yet it is only natural scientists in both cases who define the boundaries (or lack thereof) for ID and evolution. Why the imbalance?
   
  The reason I put (natural) in front of scientists is in an effort to help distinguish between natural(istic) science and non-natural(istic) science. If all science is 'natural' then this is one of the very things that the IDM is arguing repeatedly against – hegemony in science that favors natural(istic) explanations above all others. Some would say ‘to the exclusion of all others.’ Naturalism is clearly one of the IDM's targets. Not methodological or metaphysical - just 'naturalism.' This target of the IDM welcomes criticism concentrated on naturalism and secularization, through appeals to biology, specifically, non-(or post)-Darwinian evolutionary biology.
   
  Please forgive, Charles, that I prefer to play with words, which may enhance/multiply their meanings. Sometimes it helps, at other times it confuses. But I will trust that you understand what I wish to point out here by the emphasis on natural science and naturalism. Naturalism, whether consciously or unconsciously is entangled with ‘natural science’. Naturalism *is* a threat to theism when presented as its anti-thesis, though of course, not all natural scientists are anti-theists (apparently a hefty percentage of scientists in the USA, however, are non-theists). A synthesis is likely not to be found in the repatriated concept of ‘design’ connected to ‘intelligence,’ which up until now has few if any limitations.
   
  Regards,
   
  Gregory

Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote: Gregory,
   
  With regards to your statements below - Why do you state that "natural" scientists are not united in their views on the age of the earth and universe?
   
  Best,
  Charles
   
   
  <><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
   
   
  
>>> Gregory Arago 3/1/2006 3:40 PM >>">gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 3/1/2006 3:40 PM >>
“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.

                
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Received on Thu Mar 2 13:07:56 2006