Re: [asa] ISSR on ID

There are some other parts of the statement that would make me
uncomfortable. For example:

*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.*
 IMHO, methodological naturalism is a useful pragmatic limitation. But this
statement makes it a philosophical limitation, which IMHO is not justified.
I also don't like the reference to "religious language," which implies a
naive view about the function and use of language. I tend to agree with Roy
Clouser that religious neutrality is a myth.

Isn't the ultimate "purpose" of science to discover truths about the natural
world? I'd think an organization devoted to "dialogue" between science and
religion (as stated on the ISSR website) would rather say something like
this (which reveals my critical realist approach):

"In the process of uncovering truths about the reality in which we find
ourselves, it has historically proven very useful to seek explanations that
do not involve the direct intervention of any divine agent. The social
institution we call 'science' operates under this pragmatic limitation.
This produces ancillary social benefits such as the ability to prioritize
research funding according to disciplinary boundaries; clarifying
expectations for scholarly discourse, peer review, and publication in
different disciplines; and supplying a rough guideline for Constitutional
issues concerning public education. Other social institutions, including
academic and religious entities, may seek to uncover truths about reality
without this limitation. An integrated approach to discerning truths about
reality will draw on all of these resources and methodologies. It is
confusing, unnecessary, and inappropriate, however, to deliniate a primarily
philosophical or theological approach as 'science.'"

Also, this: *it has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in
biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal
scientifically understood processes.*
**
From everything I've read, this seems overstated. Yes, there are proposed
evolutionary pathways for the sorts of things ID folks have identified as
"irreducibly complex," but it is not at all clear that existing proposals
explain those things "as well" as the ID explanations -- unless "as well"
means both sides sometimes engage in wild speculation.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:25:19 -0500