Re: [asa] ISSR on ID

I also was surprised at a few of them, who I like very much but haven't done
much on Sand R.

It is good to see Randy on says this foreigner! It is a pity that we so
often have to look over our shoulders in case someone does not approve. We
need open discussion not censorship.

On the ID statement there were Ruse and Numbers - great guys but not exactly
Christian, a Muslim some I don't know and Denis Alexander an evangelical

Michael----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:36 PM
Subject: 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.
>
>

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 15:03:51 2008