[asa] Re: Invitation to Pim

Pim, thank you for responding to my invitation to broaden your contributions
to the ASA list. My comments/responses are inserted as indicated.

Ted

>>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 1/17/2008 1:14 PM >>>
It is important to differentiate between the contributions of the
various PT authors and the comments which are not under control of PT
and unless they violate the minimalistic rules of the board, will not
be deleted or moved.
PT is a place for many purposes and one involves educating people
about science, especially evolutionary science, and furthermore
exposing the follies of creationism when it comes to Intelligent
Design or Young Earth Creationism. While the latter one is by any
measure or standard far more 'scientific' than the former, the latter
one is completely without scientific merrit. And yet, in this country
countless people have been misled to believe otherwise. We see efforts
resulting in the undermining of faith and science all around this
country and PT serves a role here.

TED: I think you got a bit garbled on the "former" and "latter," but I
think we agree about this. PT does have some value, IMO, along the lines
you point out.

***

So let's look at this list which involves contributions from Janice.
Is that the kind of message ASA wants to be associated with?

TED: Speaking for myself (as I was in your case), I find almost nothing in
most of Janice's posts that are germane to the mission and identify of the
ASA. I realized that as I was composing my "invitation" to you, and I was
planning to compose a similar "invitation" to her. I trust that Janice will
see this: the ASA is not about the politicization of science, in the ways
you promote, Janice. I ask that you also consider what I told Pim. This
site is not a blog; it is not political in nature--if politics enters into a
conversation, it ought to be incidental and in a natural way, not as part of
a larger political agenda that is being advanced through our list. Please
stop the political rhetoric. If you wish to participate in the larger
science/Christianity conversation, by all means do so. Otherwise, please
take the political critique and commentary somewhere else. Calling John
Houghton a liar is simply not acceptable, Janice, not anywhere, and
especially not here.

***

As to my so called defense of Dawkins, it was not as much a defense
of Dawkins as much as asking people to present opinions that match
more closely with what Dawkins has really said and done and/or provide
supporting evidence for their positions. I have found that many
objections to Dawkins are mostly not based on things he has said or
done. As such I am very interested in the interactions of faith and
science, what I am not in favor of is representations of the positions
of others which lack much in reality. Which is also why I consider
your response mostly ad hominem as it links my participation on this
forum to topics of your interests

Is that the so called constructive agenda of ASA? A bravo hardly seems
supportive of these goals now does it?

TED: Do you think that the ASA has a constructive agenda, Pim? Your tone
here suggests that you don't, in which case you shouldn't be here. But
maybe I'm reading too much into this--always a danger in electronic
communication--and I'd like to know your views as they actually are, not as
I may be incorrectly inferring them to be. Repeat: Do you think that the
ASA has a constructive agenda?

*****

But no I am not interested in defending myself against these
imaginations and I will continue to contribute to ASA in a manner
which explores in a constructive manner the interactions between
science and faith. St Augustine included...

TED: My comments are not ad hominem. As for the content of the ASA list
topics, we've been pretty loose on that (as anyone can see), but my points
about who the ASA actually is--our mission and purpose--are quite clearly
identified with advancing the integration of Christian faith and learning.
Dawkins, like Stephen Pinker and Francis Crick, has clearly indicated his
severe opposition to those who believe that science and religion can have
relations other than the confrontational -- his opposition, for example, to
the establishment at Oxford of an endowed chair in science & religion is
quite well known (although, Pim, the very best documentation I have of this
comes from private statements by his colleagues that I am not at liberty to
share).

But, no more about Dawkins, Pim. The ASA is about the constructive
engagement of Christianity and science. It can be appropriate in certain
situations to invoke Augustine's dictum against foolishness; I've done that
myself in various places, including here. What I've invited you to do, Pim,
is to offer your views on the positive construction of science & faith. Do
you have any such views? Or, do you think that any and all efforts to
relate science & faith are nothing more than the kind of foolishness that
Augustine cautioned us about?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 17 14:08:59 2008