Re: [asa] restatement on ID as a "proof" of God (defense of Behe)

I comment below on Cameron's last statement in response to Ted.
Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>
> Ted:
>
> My answers are inserted in square brackets.
>
>
> [I would praise all the people you mentioned for their efforts.
> However, I would point out that the ID people are in a different
> position. The people you mention, when they go into debate with the
> Darwin-atheists, generally (I believe) don't challenge the Darwinian
> mechanism, but only the application of it to religion and ethics. So
> they take some heat for their religious views, but their scientific
> competence isn't questioned, and they aren't ridiculed for being bad
> scientists. ID people, when they go into such debates, face a
> double-barrelled attack; not only are their religious views pummelled,
> but they are called incompetent scientists for doubting the power of
> the Darwinian mechanism. And if they don't have tenure yet,
> expressing such doubt is the kiss of death if they are in any life
> sciences field, and probably in most other natural science fields as
> well. So yes, there's courage in both cases, but often jobs and
> professional reputation and grant money and the future hopes of one's
> graduate students and so on are on the line in the ID case in the way
> that they aren't in Collins's case or Polkinghorne's case or Ken
> Miller's case.]
>

In my opinion it is counterproductive for Christians to challenge the
Darwinian mechanism. First it is a "god of the gaps approach" and hence
leads nowhere. Second, it needlessly alienates scientists who might
otherwise be sympathetic to Christianity. It is the TE people and not
the ID people who are fighting the battle on ground on which the battle
is able to be won.
Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 20:36:11 2009