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

Mike has just made a very interesting statement. I would like to ask him
if "the ID folks" include Dembski, who in the past has made statements
that TE's are no friends of ID's.
Don

Nucacids wrote:
> 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 Tue Nov 4 00:06:57 2008