RES: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID (Expelled?)

Gregory,
 
You wrote: "Do you really think 'natural selection' is such a powerful
explanatory concept-duo, Bernie? Darwin himself doubted this! Imo, it is
full of holes, filled with agency-problems, an obvious child of its age
which is now outgrown in our contemporary vocabularies."
 
This is something I find enormously frustrating when discussing with ID
people. The entire discussion is a moving target. What's the issue? Natural
selection (as it was presented in 1859, without any of the advances in the
past 150 years - otherwise why bringing Darwin into the discussion)?
Darwinism? Common descent? By the way, why don't we see in movies like
"Expelled" that common descent does not seem to be controversial for a large
number of (most?) ID people? Would that "make things more complicated"?
 
It's like ID is an amorphous critique of Darwinism/Natural selection/common
descent/atheism/materialism/naturalistic biochemistry/(include here whatever
those evil scientists are up to).
 
You also wrote: "Welcome to the 21st century - a globalizing world - wherein
electronic technology shows us how 'evolution' is an outdated concept! Let
the biologists try to catch up if they are able. And if not, the rest of the
academy will move past them - this is what 'science' is about."
 
Catch up with whom? The "rest of the academy"? Or the "lawyers and public
relations agents"?
 
The fact is that "IDM" has systematically failed to show any convincing
evidence that it is possible, even in principle, to use *science* to detect
ID (as predicted by the original quotation by C.S. Lewis). The only forum
that is left is in venues such as "Expelled". Here's a simple question:
could you name a single scientific discovery based in the "ID theory" (other
than something like "you know that thing people haven't figured out yet?
It's ID, so don't bother looking further")? If there is, that's something I
should definitely catch up with.
 
Marcio
 
 
 
 
De: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] Em nome
de Gregory Arago
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 26 de novembro de 2008 17:06
Para: 'ASA'; Dehler, Bernie
Assunto: RE: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID (Expelled?)
 

Bernie, I'm not sure that I'm willing to give a type of black or white
answer that you seek.
 
Yes, it met some of its objectives, without any doubt. It reached peoples'
radar!
 
1) It was a 'hit' in so far as it was a high-grossing documentary film.
Perhaps it finished in the top-ten highest grossing documentary's (i.e. from
the last time I heard it was 12th) of American film history.
 
2) The film was not produced or directed, afaik, by anyone IN the Discovery
Institute, though it interviewed fellows of the DI and even visited the
Seattle premises. Does your knowledge about this differ from mine?
 
3) What do you mean by 'dying thrust'? Like I said, from the perspective of
the IDM as a social movement, it is not soon going away. That is, unless
something (and someone) would come along to replace it or to fundamentally
re-arrange it's academic priority. Do you really think 'natural selection'
is such a powerful explanatory concept-duo, Bernie? Darwin himself doubted
this! Imo, it is full of holes, filled with agency-problems, an obvious
child of its age which is now outgrown in our contemporary vocabularies.
 
4) Should I take it that you are one of the 'small group of scientists and
scholars, including Christian ones' that I mention, Bernie, who is entirely
against ID?
 
Welcome to the 21st century - a globalizing world - wherein electronic
technology shows us how 'evolution' is an outdated concept! Let the
biologists try to catch up if they are able. And if not, the rest of the
academy will move past them - this is what 'science' is about. Pace and
space are important factors that 'evolutionary time' is harmless to counter.
 
Gregory

--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID (Expelled?)
To: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:15 PM
Gregory said:
"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- a simple question- was the movie "Expelled" a hit or a flop? Did
it meet its objectives, do you think? Or was it a last attempt at a dying
thrust for the Discovery Institute's ID movement.
 
.Bernie
 
  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:05 AM
To: 'ASA'; Nucacids
Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
 

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

--- 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, 6:33 PM
Yes, ID is outside the scope of science. Of course, there are many forms of
human inquiry that are not science either. As for the ID movement, does it
still exist? If so, where does it exist and how does one define "the ID
movement?"
 
- Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcio Pie <mailto:pie@ufpr.br>
To: 'ASA' <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:00 AM
Subject: RES: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
 
Hi David,
 
I think you might want to read again the quotation I provided. It seems
pretty clear to me that C.S. Lewis was arguing that detecting design (the
whole point of the ID) is outside the scope of science. Of course, simply
pointing out that C. S. Lewis had that position is not a slam-dunk argument
about the validity of the ID movement, but it provides an example of a very
orthodox Christian thinker who agrees with the rest of the scientific
community on this issue (even without any threat to be "expelled" from
anything).
 
Marcio
 
  _____

Looking for the perfect gift? <http://www.flickr.com/gift/> Give the gift
of Flickr!
 
  _____

Looking for the perfect gift? <http://www.flickr.com/gift/> Give the gift
of Flickr!

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 17:01:10 2008