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

Hi Ted,

>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.

Good point. I made the case that Behe was a TE back on Telic Thoughts over
a year ago:
http://telicthoughts.com/behe-and-theistic-evolution/

Different context, different result - the ID folks had no problem with
accepting Behe as a TE; the critics did.

-Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: [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 23:52:56 2008