Re: [asa] American Scientific Affiliation * Whatever happened to its mission?

Let's be clear about why Bill Dembski is so unhappy with the ASA, insofar as
the ASA is a place that some TEs have found hospitable for fellowship and
conversation (as have some who are not TEs). Bill does not believe that
metaphysics and religion alone, without hard scientific challenges to
Dawkins and company, will bear the weight of cultural transformation, at
least the kind of cultural transformation that Bill wants to see. (I might
also like to see some of the same things, if not perhaps all of the same
things, so I say this with much sympathy.) His review of Conway Morris'
book
http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Dembski_Reviews_Conway_Morris.pdf
underscores this point.

Judging from my conversations with them, quite a few of the TEs in the ASA
are convinced that inferences to a purposeful universe, whether or not the
word "design" is used to express one's conclusions, go well beyond
scientific evidence alone. In our view, theological and philosophical
convictions and beliefs are involved in making such inferences. Theodicy in
our view cannot be separated from such inferences, and theodicy has not been
a prominent component of arguments promoting ID; rather, it has tended to be
introduced in response to claims from ID opponents about imperfect
adaptation or well designed but malicious organisms. That is, it tends to
come up defensively rather than being a coherent part of the ID position.
This is consistent with the public face of ID, which disavows specific
God-talk in favor of unembodied minds and intelligent designers.

I'm not intending this to be a criticism of ID on this point, although to
some extent clearly it is. I am mainly intending it to be an explanation--I
believe a relevant and important one--of why Bill and some other IDs seem to
be so negative about the ASA. Once again, it boils down to the ASA not
being TDI.

As for the ASA's concerns about YEC, much could be said about this. I know
that Bill himself has sometimes been concerned about criticisms from YECs
directed at him, and he must be well aware of the dominant hold that view
has on many conservative Protestant churches. It's a concern for many of us
in the ASA, mainly for spiritual reasons. It's such bad science, that when
scientifically inclined Christian youth find out how wrong it is, in quite a
few cases they just give up their Christian faith altogether. In our view,
that needn't have happened. For this and some other reasons, some in the
ASA have been concerned about how closely IDs and YECs have cooperated over
the years, despite the fundamental differences about the earth's age that
most IDs have with YECs. Billy Grassie (who is not an ASA member) gave
voice to similar concerns here:

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/9819/Default.aspx#f15

In the beginning, the ASA was mostly concerned about having a ministry to
students and religious leaders. It was a great idea, but never really
carried out very effectively--not IMO for intellectual reasons (ie, not
because the organization became more sympathetic to evolution over time) but
more for cultural reasons. The ASA's message of integrity in both science
and theology was never very popular. If anything, it might be more popular
now than it was in the 1940s, when the conversation in America was so highly
polarized than it now is. (There are highly visible and viable alternatives
now to Dawkins and Morris; there wasn't much then.) The average American
holds a strongly Baconian view of science, while the scientific community
since the 17th century has increasingly relied on H-D methods in all
branches of science. ASA members, including some who are TEs and some who
are not, were until recently not very successful at conveying to the church
a more accurate picture of what science is about and how it works. The
original vision Jack Haas was referring to needs to be understood in proper
context. The early members tended themselves to be more Baconian than the
scientific community generally. And, when we did try to communicate more
broadly, we lacked financial and technical resources to get out the word
effectively. The one highly successful venture partly related to the early
ASA, the Moody sermons from science films, perpetuated the Baconian view
that was already long out of date in the scientific community.

Recently this has begun to change, as ASA members have been able to reach
large audiences and often new audiences with a hopeful and thoughtful
message. This need not be a message rejecting ID (and with quite a few
members it is not), but it typically is a more accurate portrayal of science
and the process of science than that from the early years of the
organization. Furthermore, many members are interested in many things
unrelated to origins, though interest in origins is still front burner for
quite a few of us.

Anyone who thinks that the ASA has capitulated to or begun to ignore
scientific materialism, however, needs either clearer glasses or more
coffee. It's all over the place, as I've pointed out in many posts here and
elsewhere. Just b/c it doesn't necessarily resemble ID, doesn't mean that
it fails to confront scientific materialism. There are multiple ways to do
that, and the ASA reflects the various views of our members.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 24 06:03:48 2007