Re: [asa] Resolution affirming Creation and Evolution

Randy:
Sure, ASA should turn up the heat on the Dawkins' and Weinberg's and
Provine's. But the heat should be applied precisely at the the weak
point, namely the scientism of these people. I agree with Keith that
the approach of the ID political advocates has been counterproductive.
People as diverse as Ruse and McGrath are doing a good job in putting
the heat on Dawkins re his scientism. I suggest that ASA members could
well join them.
Don

Randy Isaac wrote:

> Keith,
> I certainly agree with what you say. However, the fact remains
> that ID has brought the issue of science and theism on the agenda in a
> way that no one else at ASA has been able to do. You and others may
> disagree with their message but unfortunately the Dawkin's and
> Weinberg's and Provine's aren't feeling enough heat from anyone else
> to bother responding. All I'm saying is we need to find a way to turn
> up the heat.
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <kbmill@ksu.edu>
> To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Resolution affirming Creation and Evolution
>
>
>> Randy stated:
>>
>>> I guess my concern is not so much about this resolution as about
>>> ourselves at ASA. We are very busy discussing among ourselves the
>>> details
>>> of ID, YEC, TE, EC, concordism, accommodationism, etc., and
>>> appropriately
>>> so. Yet how much effort are we able to make in confronting the
>>> advocacy of
>>> metaphysical naturalism itself? While we may have difficulties with
>>> some
>>> aspects of ID, at least they have managed to get the issue on the
>>> table so
>>> that secular scientific communities around the world are putting it
>>> on their
>>> agenda. I don't know of any other perspective in ASA that has managed
>>> to do
>>> that. This gives all of us an opportunity to share the perspectives
>>> from
>>> the Christian community. We do indeed differ (and widely so) on the
>>> details
>>> but we are united in our belief in the Creator and that science does
>>> not
>>> imply metaphysical naturalism. I wish we could be more aggressive on
>>> that score.
>>
>>
>> I would differ in this assessment. Many ASA members have indeed been
>> agreesive in arguing against metaphysical naturalism. Furthermore, in
>> my experience ID advocates have made this effort more difficult rather
>> than easier. Many of them actually present a picture of the scientific
>> enterprise and of evolutionary theory that is not different from that
>> of Dawkins. They both argue that science is based on metaphysical
>> naturalism and that evolutionary theory in particular effectively
>> denies the existence of divine a ction in nature. Here in Kasnas, it
>> was the ID advocates who changed the science standards to argue that
>> evolution did deny purpose, meaning and divine guidance. They aslo
>> explicitly identified evolution with scientific materialism and
>> atheism. The ID movement has not helped to overcome the popular
>> identification of modern science with metaphysical naturalism -- they
>> have explicitly encouraged it.
>>
>> Keith
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 25 20:54:53 2006