Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

-- 
James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu)          Phone: 712 722-6279
498 4th Ave NE
Biology Department                                     FAX :  712
722-1198
Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>>> On 4/3/2007 at 10:29 AM, in message
<20070403153330.CF917710FFB@gray.dordt.edu>, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Well they posted it! Only sane thing on the blog. It just illustrates
how 
> Dembksi and others simply do not want to engage with others. 
> 
> I frequently disagree with what David, Ted and Pim say, but so what!
However 
> we can have a constructive discussion which is clearly absent from
Uncommon 
> Descent. I note some silly nonsense on UD on global warming too. 
> 
> When I got to know Dembski's work 10 years ago I was first hostile
and then 
> warmed. At the ID conference at Wisconsin in June 2000 I was
beginning to 
> lean towards ID and despite initial misgivings felt there was a lot I
could 
> agree with. 
Wow from your strident posts in the past, I thought you had little
appreciation for ID.  My appreciation for Anglican vicars that know
geology just went up 3 notches.  I still appreciate a lot of what ID
says. But I also like what Francis Collins and Ted say.
> 
> Several things turned me off
> 
> 1. I find IDers cant cope with questioning and seem to want people to
be 
> entirely with them. I find that too coercive and insist on some
latitude so I 
> can work things out for myself. But " if they are not for me 100%
then they 
> are against me"
Sadly there is some truth to this and yet they do tolerate some
friendly critics for a while anyway and their big tent really means that
there are more diversity in ID than I see on this list.  Of course the
two subsets do overlap and some of the leaders do belong both to ID and
ASA.  They just see no need to post here and sometimes I wonder why I
still do.
There is another difference that should be brought up.  ID is much more
run by a few leaders.  That is a bit less now then when Johnson was
around. Some of this leadership was and maybe still suffers from the
personalities of the leaders and some of them may take offense quicker
than I would like.  However, when you are working in a different
paradigm, your neck is stuck out a LOT more and the way you are treated
is not always right    As I indicated in the past, I sometimes hesitate
to post on this list with its archives on the web.  And Pim you may not
quote me elsewhere without my permission.  I want to be known among the
scientists as someone who has done good work on palynology of
Carboniferous coal or more recently on the pioneer history of Massasauga
in Iowa and Minnesota and not first as a wacky Christian. 
> 
> 2. The political activism of ID over Ohio, Kansas and Dover and now 
> truthinscience in the UK
Actually I see that to their credit. If there is a problem with
secularization of science and Plantinga, Marsden would agree that there
is indeed than should not we in the sciences be in the fore front in
giving the Christian laity texts (how many good TE texts - are out there
- actually only ICR produced one) and working for our Christian voice in
science.   It is easier not to be politically active but I think we
Christian scientists should be more active.  It is another question of
how to do it.
> 
> 3. The high level of distortion in the writings of Johnson and Wells
in 
> particular
> 
> Ted has said some of the same.
> 
But as Ted indicated last time Johnson had done his homework and
Michael,  remember that Mike Behe is a good scientist.  In fact the ID
movement could not be where it is today if Behe and Dembski were poor
scientists.   So I really don't think this charge has a lot of weight.
Peace
> Michael
> 
>     Ted
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.