Here we go again! Another posting by Denyse O'Leary that IMHO is filled
with distortions and half truths.
24 April 2007
Did the premier organization of Christians in science really choose to
target
fellow Christians instead of materialism in science? Apparently so.
My view is that it is hopeless for us to try to discuss things on the
UcD forum and that we should let Randy and the executive figure out how
to respond, if at all. Once things get highly polarized as they now seem
to be then discussion becomes impossible or nearly so.
My position is that YEC is false to a high degree of probability
(1-1/gogol). ID does not seem to be good science but I would not rule
out their becoming good science. God could well have directed evolution
say be causing the collapse of wave functions... and thus ID (Behes
Irreducible Complexity) could well be true, but how would you ever
demonstrate it, if that kind of hidden mechanism were used? As best I
can tell Behes argument about the Flagellin seems in doubt but I have to
rely on others opinion for that as I have no expertise in the relevant
science. Descent with modification seems to have a very high
probability. The current Darwinian synthesis is probably more or less
true but I do not find all of the just so stories convincing and God
could have intervened at specific points by various means that are hard
(impossible) for us to detect. Of course all science is subject to
revision as we learn and understand more of God's wonderful and terrible
creation. As a Christian I think id is true. By lower case id I mean
things like the fine tuning arguments for the laws of nature and for
initial conditions in creation as we have discussed earlier on the asa
listserv.
Some might ask well why don't you read Wm Dembski and he will show
you how to detect design. I have spent time looking at his web site and
have one of his books, both of which tell me that although I have enough
Probabality and Statistics to follow what he writes in reasonable depth
and the critiques, I do not have nearly enough knowledge to see any
problems and even following what he writes would be a lot of
intellectual effort that does not seem justified to me at present, other
things are more important. The tone of posts of UcD recently has
contributed to my being unwilling to devote the effort to understand Wm
Dembski in depth. (I have read Fisher on Analysis of Variance etc in
the original and took a 4th year course in Probability and Statistics
but I know just enough to know that I could end up with faulty knowledge
without being aware of it.)
And yes before anyone asks I have read Darwin's Black Box and Darwin on
Trial.
In general I approve of the policy of publishing YEC, ID and TE in
PSCF, since I think that trying to keep up the conversation with YEC and
ID is important. Having said that, I admit to sometimes not reading the
YEC articles in depth but I was glad to see Loren Harrsma's article in
the most recent edition of PSCF (see attached note below:)
Just so I do not get misunderstood I do NOT think either ID or YEC are
strong heresy, where strong heresy is that which if one believes then
one is not a Christian.
I think Rich Blinne and I are largely on the same page on the above
viewpoints.
More than fifteen years ago my wife studied for a masters in world view
studies, at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. Naturally I
ended up reading some of her texts. From those and having read Popper,
Michael Polanyi and so on, I well realize that one's world view has a
significant impact on what science one does, on the questions one finds
it worthwhile to ask and even possibly on the anomalies one investigates
and of course on how one write on science for the popular press. Thus I
do not come to accepting evolution by reading Dawkins and others of the
popular evolution supporters, although I am told that some of Dawkins
earlier books are excellent if you ignore the philosophical naturalism.
Ted I thought your response to "nullasalus" earlier on the asa listserv
was right on and helpful. I had thought of saying similar things but
you have much better background on this dispute than I do. Thanks
Shalom
Dave W
I do not consent to the quoting or reproduction of these comments in any
forum unless they are reproduced in full.
=================================================================
Loren and Deborah
Thanks for your participation in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. I
think that and Finding Darwin's God are the two best books on evolution
from a supportive Christian point of view.
Also the article in Mar 2007 PSCF on ID was good. Even from a
demarcation point of view it seems to me that ID is science, just not
very fruitful or good science. Behe's response seemed weak as he did
not really articulate the positive arguments for ID. The asa list serve
is often too hostile to people like Behe and Snoke and that bothers me a
great deal. So thanks.
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 22:27:22 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 24 2007 - 22:27:23 EDT