Re: [asa] Fwd: Denyse reviews Collins

>>> Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 11/28/06 4:53 PM >>>writes:

  Does Ted Davis in his heart of hearts really believe that evolution is
(or even could be) a 'story of everything' or is he just repeating the
mantra of secular philosophers/historians of science?
   
  Need an 'alternative to evolution' speak about the things Ted highlights
- dinosaurs, solar system, universe and earth?
   
I wonder if anyone at ASA is profiting from their defense of TE against ID.
Maybe in lawyer fees.
  
Ted replies:
We've discussed this point several times before, and IMO Gregory, you just
don't get my point.

First, if anyone thinks that I only repeat "the mantra of secular
philosophers/historians of science," then they (a) don't know me (which you
don't) and/or (b) haven't paid attention to my writings. Please have a look
at my article, "Intelligent Design on Trial,"
(http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/Intelligent%20Design%20on%20Trial.pdf) and
then indicate precisely how I repeat such mantras. I could refer you to
many other writings to make the same point. The fact that I agree with
Thomas Kuhn that science abhors a vacuum hardly reduces to my repeating
mantras, any more than the fact that I agree with Watson and Crick that DNA
drives heredity means that I'm an atheist (as they were). It simply means
that I agree with Kuhn on this point.

Second, as to the state of my heart, let me just say with Pascal that "the
heart has its reasons, which reason cannot know." No, I don't believe in
evolution explains everything, in the sense that it can "explain" why the
universe exists, why it has the particular character and attributes that it
has, and why we are here ourselves. I take that to be the sense of your
question. Those are theological matters, and while science can inform
theology at the lower levels it cannot inform theology at the higher ones.
It's rather the other way around: theology can inform science at the higher
levels, and explain why we are able even to try to understand the universe
at all.

When I have spoken of evolution as a "theory of everything," it's only in
the limited *scientific* sense that you seem to grasp: as an historical
explanation of the development of the physical universe and living things.
And, when we already have such a theory in place, a theory that does connect
in a very coherent manner numerous diverse facts--such as the fact that the
earth is much older than humanity, the fact that the sun is much younger
than the universe itself, and the fact that dinosaurs became extinct long
before people existed--why shouldn't we expect it to be embraced
unless/until a better theory of comparable explanatory scope comes along?

As for profiteering, I take this comment as a joke, and I am laughing.
:-)

And, oh yes, my brother-in-law is a lawyer, though he isn't an ASA member.
Perhaps a coherent, comprehensive explanation of these diverse facts will
implicate me in some way. :-)

ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 29 09:01:12 2006