Re: [asa] Polkinghorne, 'natural' Science and 'intelligent design'

George,
   
  I consider the IDM 'progressive' in that it is engaging contemporary issues that some people at ASA, at least on the ASA list, are obviously not. These few ASAers are instead reacting against 'intelligent design' theory and protecting their precious TE/EC status quo rather than trying to advance their respective 'sciences' with new contributions to knowledge. You, George, for example, are no longer a practising theoretical physicist, I presume, yet your current contribution is to 'science and religion' dialogue.
   
  In regard to your personal letter on this public list, very little agreement was reached between us because you simply would not budge from upholding the natural/supernatural dichotomy. I stepped forward to acknowledge the theological reasons for your upholding of the natural/supernatural dichotomy. But you never stepped forward in kind to recognize my point of view, about why the only opposite to supernatural is not 'natural.' Why is that?
   
  Chris Barden interjected to suggest that the natural/supernatural dichotomy is questionable, yet you still have not dignified that this is so or even that some respectable people (like Rev. Dr. A. McGrath) acknowledge it. Yours is a theological position (backed, apparently, by a type of physicalism inherent in the discipline of physics) pitted against the diversity of the academy!
   
  My position allows that theology has/should have a respectable position at the academic table; your position doesn't allow social-humanitarian views that identify alternatives to 'supernatural' as opposites to 'natural' a way in the door to conversation. This, I feel, is discriminatory and prejudiced. You, I presume, feel it is simply the 'natural' way of things according to your view of the academy. I respectfully disagree.
   
  I have never uplifted 'the' (or a) research program of the IDM as being 'progressive,' in comparison to your view that it is regressive. Mark those words please. But I am fully willing to identify ways that the IDM has and is moving the dialogue between science and religion forward that your adherence to evolutionary creationism (EC) or theological evolutionism (TE) simply has not equalled. The fact that theological evolutionism and evolutionary creationism have not been able to turn the tide in America to 'educate' people about origins and processes so that science and theology are both shown dignity is proof of the absence of progress in your approach. ID may not turn the tide either, but it sure is shaking the boat you're sitting in!
   
  Intelligent design has put important issues on the table that neither TE nor EC have achieved in getting public. This does not mean it is a perfect or even a satisfactory theory/hypothesis to date. And I am not an IDist, I do not accept intelligent design theory the way it is. I am not schooled under the tutelage of Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Meyer, et al. Yet from a sociology of science perspective, the movement known as the IDM is fasicnating! And as for ASA, 'intelligent design,' in combination with evolution and creation has generated more discussion on the ASA list than anything generated within ASA for, can anyone say how long...?
   
  You're right George, my efforts on this list may just about be exhausted right now. I have tried to open a new perspective on some of the topics raised at ASA about issues of science and religion/faith/theology and philosophy, including secularism (which Charles Taylor is doing a bang-up job on this year, starting Sept. 20, 2007 - someone please send me "A Secular Age" - 896 pages!!), but it seems that certain ASA representatives are not used to and in some ways not accepting of a social-humanitarian point of view. Others who are not natural scientists have engaged ASA list-regulars by meeting them in their dialogue half-way. I have rather chosen to try to pull the masses of naturalists just a little bit towards human-social thought, however this seems to have been of little avail.
   
  I guess that'll be about all for now?
   
  May Peace Be With You,
  Gregory A.

   
  
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
          Gregory -
   
  I have engaged in extensive conversations with you both on & off list with very little agreement reached. The fact that you consider ID progressive, at least in comparison with the ASA, while I consider the research program of ID to be regressive almost by definition, shows the gap between our views. Thus without prejudice to the issues involved you should not be surprised that I don't consider it a good investment of my time to engage in further debate with you here. You may stop expressing surprise that I don't respond - again - to your arguments.
   
  I suggested some time ago that you submit an article setting out your views on the role of sciences such as sociology in the science-theology dialogue to Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. That might be more fruitful than your efforts on the asa list.
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

       
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 20 12:42:57 2007