Re: [asa] STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY

On 6/3/07, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert,
> Sadly, yesterday, another thread degenerated into something else.

Yes, that cave reference :-)

> So, if you are correct, the Clergy letter is actually rejecting scientism.
> And rejecting the idea that science is the absolute and and only justifiable
> access to the truth". Is my understanding here correct? Complementary
> ways to truth means both science and religion can be (and are)
> simultaneously true? Is that correct? If so, I stand corrected about the
> Clergy letter.
>
> Does this mean PvM is actually arguing against the basic position of
> Michael Zimmerman? Is that true?

Nope.

> Now, I hope you can see why the fourth definition (above), if embraced by
> a group of ministers, is problematical. It is not possible to believe in
> an ultimate cause that is supernatural (which is the essence of Christian
> thought) and simultaneously adhere to the idea that science, in its limited
> scope, is "the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth". The
> latter is anti-Christian in effect. It is, as far as I can tell, basic
> atheism. I would be very happy to learn that the Clergy letter is a mere
> rebuke of this. Sorry, I did originally not read the letter that way.
> I haven't seen the PvM's of the world attacking Zimmerman, or laughing
> behind his back. Maybe its been going on the whole time. Can you perhaps
> point me to it, that would be helpful.

I applaud the Clergy letter which points out how science and religion
are complementary.

<quote>We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational
scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon
which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this
truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately
embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our
children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds
capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this
gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's
loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of
the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of
hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the
science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of
evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science
remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different,
but complementary, forms of truth.</quote>

In other words, science and religion can coexist rather than religion
forcing science to infer design from our ignorance.
Much better than the 'teach the controversy' or 'critically analyze'
approach which only superficially seems attractive but has been abused
to promote ID, which is all but critical in its analysis and has
remained scientifically vacuous.
Something which has not escaped many scientists, judges and religious
people alike. Thank God.

Let's also realize that scientism is not necessarily a philosophical
mistake, it's a philosophical variant of positions which range in a
wide spectrum. It surely seems far less of a philosophical mistake
that YEC (which denies scientific findings that contradict a
particular restricted reading of the Bible) or ID which relies on our
ignorance to find evidence of 'design'.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 3 14:28:14 2007