Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design

I'm sorry, Gregory, but you are the one who's been "demolished," concerning the ID view that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution. I really don't want to prolong this, but I can't let it end like that--although I do hope this post will do it, for me at least.

Here are quotations from three documents taken from the Discovery Institute web site, written in two of the 3 cases by TDI fellows or employees, all of which specifically state or directly imply that ID is an alternative scientific theory to evolution. You are blowing smoke about this, to be blunt, Gregory. It could well the be the case that, since the Dover trial, the claim formerly made or implied has been deliberately muted; or, it could be the case that some ID leaders have changed their minds about this, perhaps in response to my own claim in a magazine article about the trial that ID is not yet an alternative theory or perhaps independently of my argument on their own (I have no evidence for the former possibility, but my view is well known and I wonder). Or, maybe something else is the case. Whatever the case is, Gregory, it's no accident that camp followers of ID have always believed that ID is intended to be a scientific alternative to evolution: ID leaders them!
 selves have believed this.

Here is the evidence, based on 5 minutes of looking. I see no reason to keep going.

(1) Casey Luskin (http://www.discovery.org/a/7771)
Before explaining the legal and educational merit of teaching intelligent design (ID), the following point must be made clear: While I strongly believe that ID should be considered constitutional to present as a scientific alternative to evolution, I do not support mandating ID into public school curricula.

(2) William S. Harris and John Calvert (http://74.125.47.132/custom?q=cache:DIl7ToOOFggJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fcommand%3Ddownload%26id%3D1453+%22alternative+to+evolution%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=pub-7542212341370520)
Discovery Institute’s recommended approach to the teaching about evolution, which the Dover school board rejected, is: 1. Make sure the evidence schools present for Darwin’s theory is scientifically accurate. 2. Teach the scientific evidence for and against the key claims of Darwin’s theory, but don’t mandate the study of alternative theories such as intelligent design.

(3) John G. West and David K. DeWolf (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186)
Further support for this proposition is found in the Wedge Strategy, which is composed of three phases: Phase I is scientific research, writing and publicity; Phase II is publicity and opinion-making; and Phase III is cultural confrontation and renewal. (P-140 at 3). In the "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary," the Wedge
Document explains that the social consequences of materialism have been "devastating" and that it is necessary to broaden the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of ID.

I rest my case, Gregory.

Finally, Gregory, let me point out a highly significant difference between the conversation here and that over on UD, a prominent pro-ID blog. If I had gone onto UD and made the kind of triumphalist claim you made here, completely in the face of factual evidence to the contrary well known to those who are established on that site, I'd have been immediately thrown out on my -- well, on my ear (the language used there by someone who did throw me out simply for advancing an unpopular argument that did not fly in the face of the facts contained a different three-letter word for a part of the body, but I'll stick with "ear.") Your trash talk is somewhat less offensive than that, but let me caution you against making such triumphalist claims in future. We are here to provide a service to our members, first of all, and you aren't one of them--though if you agree with our mission and identity you are always welcome to become one. More to the point, we are doing what we can to pr!
 omote helpful conversation about issues related to Christianity and science, and trash talk is something we neither need nor want. We have tossed some people out for that in the past, and if you keep it up you will soon join them. Arguments and perspectives are always encouraged, when stated in appropriate and respectful ways, but you seem to be pushing the envelope presently. Tone it down, Gregory.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 24 13:19:58 2009