[asa] Short reply to Timaeus, on ID and TE

Let me start simply by pointing out the source of the example that Timaeus
uses, from the late Donald M. MacKay, a major player in the science/religion
conversation of his generation. It's from "The Clockwork Image," a book
(for an interesting exchange, see
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1976/JASA9-76Crammer.html) that I think may
still be available from the British IV Press but not the American IV Press.
At least that was true a few years ago. The example, a sign in Piccadilly
Circus saying "Bongo is good for you," is on pp. 36-39.

If ID is really as neutral toward all of the "creationism" stuff as Timaeus
presents it--and I agree that in some cases it can be, but hardly in
most--then I would probably not hesitate to apply that label to my own
thinking. Except--apparently a very important "except"--that I think that
design arguments, while legitimate, are not scientific per se. Deal
breaker?

But I do agree with this:

"And this has been my point all along, i.e., that if you take away the (in
my view irrational and religiously motivated) hostility to the idea of
detectable design, there is no insurmountable barrier between some forms of
ID and some forms of TE. It may be that, 100 years from now, Behe will be
thought of, in historical perspective, as a TE, and people will wonder why
there was ever a battle between the two camps."

I've very often said the same thing about Behe, here and at least a couple
of times on UcD. But I think in the latter case, I was not met with much
approval. Behe there is an ID and NOT a TE, for most people; it's all
politics. Which is probably why id (as above, my view) is not ID.
Politics. But real politics that we seem unable to get past, from either
side.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 3 21:20:20 2008