Re: [asa] Fwd: Denyse reviews Collins

*I wonder if anyone at ASA is profiting from their defense of TE against
ID. Maybe in lawyer fees.*
I think there's more billable hours on the other side! Too bad all those
lawyer fees couldn't be diverted to grant money for good books and
conferences or something like that.

On 11/29/06, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.