Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

Hi Mike,
 
Thanks for spotting my negative definition. You're correct. I didn't include anything positive about the standard ID definition: "The theory of intelligent holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This wasn't the type of publication that would have had any sense of context with such a positive proposition.
 
Certainly there is much anti-Darwinian thought in the IDM. But there are also several people outside of the IDM, including biologists, who think Darwin's contribution was limited given our current (scientific) knowledge (e.g. Denton and Soren Lovtrup - embryology). Yes, there are anti-evolutionary elements in the IDM, for example, the notion of 'unevolvability' and the idea of 'irreducability,' though the latter is a significant concept outside of the IDM as well. Countering reductionism seems to be a healthy Christian activity in today's era! 3rd, yes, the idea of a 'Limits-on-evolution' movement does hold some parallels with the IDM's core. 'Evolution,' as with every other scientific concept, simply must be limited in scope (no matter what Dennett might say, e.g. about 'freedom evolves'). However, as you well know Mike, the leadership of the IDM also puts forth a 'positive science' case for 'design detection' on the basis of specification and pattern
 recognition, shaped in the language of the information age, which is not merely a 'Limits-on-evolution' movement task. TE and EC, on the other hand, don't seem nearly as proficient with 'information age' vocabulary.

The second set of questions is a bit ironic, don't you think, Mike? Are you on the mainstream of anything?  Neo in the Matrix, after all, came from almost nowhere (and the actress who played Trinity is from my hometown)! Were you educated in the USA, after being Canadian-born?
 
You write: "Being educated in the mainstream of American higher education is not exactly the same as being part of American higher education."
 
Well, it's still part of the same system, even if the system alienates those who are raised in it who reject its standards and 'rules of the game.' When Meyer said that (paraphrase) 'science needed to change' this was a flash call for all 'standard academics' to push back against the IDM and to isolate its scholars. This is why such a thing as the 'Expelled' film could gain a following in the name of academic freedom, and which is why I imagine that a 'solution' to the current 'crises' must inevitably come from outside of America, though the concentration of resources in American scientific laboratories is still vastly out of proportion with the rest of the world. Is there any wonder why scholars in other parts of the world fault American scientists with the charge of 'scientism' and offer alternatives that appear 'outside the box' of what could conceivably be discussed (or tolerated) in the American scientific landscape?
 
Surely, you can gain a hint of what I'm suggesting, Mike!?
 
Warm wishes, Gregory
 
 

--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
To: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:40 PM

Hi Gregory,
 
Thanks for that definition.  You define the ID Movement as follows:
 
“…a new movement of scholars, lawyers and public relations agents in the United States of America called the intelligent design movement, that is questioning the limits of evolutionary theory in natural sciences, asking people to consider the ‘edge of evolution’ and to ‘explore evolution’ so that it is not accepted uncritically as ideology together with science.”
 
Yet where is the “ID” in the “ID movement?”  Your definition has people focused on “the limits of evolutionary theory.”  Wouldn’t it be more accurate to label this an anti-Darwinian or anti-evolutionary or Limits-on-Evolution movement?  Isn’t it striking that you’ve defined the ID Movement without any mention of ID?    
 
“Yes, the 'movement' still exists, Mike. And it is a (scientific) fact that many of the main figures in the IDM were educated in the mainstream of American higher education institutions (e.g. Johnson - Harvard, Chicago; Behe - Penn and Drexel; Dembski - Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Princeton Theological; Nelson – Chicago; Meyer - Whitworth College, Cambridge; Wells - Unification Theological Seminary, Yale; Axe - California Institute of Technology; Sternberg - Florida International and Binghamton), and thus they are part of the system they are inevitably attempting to challenge.”
 
Are they?  Being educated in the mainstream of American higher education is not exactly the same as being part of American higher education.  How many of these people are professors in schools considered part of mainstream of American higher education?   It would seem to me that the “ID Movement” is on the outside of American higher education (contrast this to the New Atheist Movement). 
 
-Mike

 
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

In a one sentence definition of the IDM, which will soon be published as part of a paper that is not at all about the IDM or ID otherwise, here is my definition:

“…a new movement of scholars, lawyers and public relations agents in the United States of America called the intelligent design movement, that is questioning the limits of evolutionary theory in natural sciences, asking people to consider the ‘edge of evolution’ and to ‘explore evolution’ so that it is not accepted uncritically as ideology together with science.”

Of course, there is also the IDMs attempt at 'positive science' in playing by (or trying to play by) the 'rules of the game' laid down by natural scientists. In any case, the IDM certainly does fit the definition of a ‘social movement’ common in the field of study of social movements (there are of course other notable dimensions of this movement as well).

In sending the above pre-publication copy to an ID advocate, I was counselled that “a new movement of scientists, philosophers and other scholars” would be more appropriate. It seems there are fewer public relations persons at the Discovery Institute than most disengaged on-lookers and internet chatters would suppose.

Yes, the 'movement' still exists, Mike. And it is a (scientific) fact that many of the main figures in the IDM were educated in the mainstream of American higher education institutions (e.g. Johnson - Harvard, Chicago; Behe - Penn and Drexel; Dembski - Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Princeton Theological; Nelson – Chicago; Meyer - Whitworth College, Cambridge; Wells - Unification Theological Seminary, Yale; Axe - California Institute of Technology; Sternberg - Florida International and Binghamton), and thus they are part of the system they are inevitably attempting to challenge.

Mike Gene might like to challenge the IDM's existence (if I correctly interpret his question, 'does it still exist?' as meaning to do this), but under pseudonym himself, with no claim to authority or educational background, while the IDM has offices, an official address and a tax number, he is in no position to 'dislocate' the meaning of 'intelligent design' away from its core in the above mentioned figures and the Discovery Institute. Indeed, what a thankless job it seems to be sometimes to have forged this significant, late-20th century road in scientific, religious and philosophical discourse, even now being pushed away by those who would have no uniquely individual theoretical idea without their initiative!

There are many things about theories/hypothesis/the paradigm of intelligent design left to be desired and even worthy of criticism, yet there are also other things that the IDM has accomplished, for example, in directly challenging the secular-materialism of the new atheists, and those versions of 'evolutionism' that are anti-theistic (i.e. one definition of ‘naturalistic’) or condescendingly agnostic. It seems to me that perhaps only as an ‘outsider’ to the conversation in America (and let’s also include Britain in this assessment) is it more easily possible to see this and to speak it.

Some things brought about in the last 15+ yrs of the IDM have been regressive and some things have been progressive and I suspect many more young people will join biological sciences and study natural sciences in general as a result of the IDM’s existence, promoting the teaching of good sciences. But there is a small group of scholars and scientists, including Christian ones, who would not wish to accept *anything* positive coming out of the IDM’s presence. For these people, the sooner it/they disappear(s) from the scene, the better. Unfortunately for them, from someone who has studied social movements, this just isn’t going to happen anytime soon!

Gregory

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 26 14:35:10 2008