Re: [asa] ISSR on ID

This part of the statement on ID, IMO, goes beyond where the ASA itself
ought to go as an organization:

"We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good
theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing
supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of
science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to
religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural
law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science
stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the
opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not
provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that
could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood
processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too
complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the
conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a
product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be
"irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow."

Speaking only for myself, I agree with much of this, but there are
legitimate talking points here whether or not the views are my own. Quite a
few ASA members would differ with part (probably not all) of this, and PSCF
publishes articles with conclusions that do not match this statement.

I know about ISSR, and think in general that it is a good idea to have a
wide-ranging, diverse organization to advance and promote international,
inter-religious conversation about science and religion. I've never been
invited to join--my sense is that it is intended to be something of an
"elite" group, despite the fact that some members are not particularly
accomplished as scholars in science & religion. I would probably look
favorably on an invitation to join, and I might or might not have endorsed
the ID statement had I been part of that conversation.

As for you, Randy, I see no reason why you should not consider an
invitation to join the ISSR, any more than you should not consider joining
some other organization that advances conversation about science & religion.
 I think most ASA members would not interpret your membership in this group
as implying that you think the ASA should as an organization endorse
everything that ISSR does. And, many members might share my view that you
could learn a few things from being part of the ISSR that could be helpful
to you and to us as you provide direction.

My two cents,

Ted (ASA Council member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 21 11:37:50 2008