Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent

I wouldn't think Behe would agree they are mutually exclusive. I think what he would agree with though would be that what is mutually exclusive with both front loading and IR would be non-guided totally random processes. But again, that assumes that design has to be detectable which I think is a mistake because we can never prove it one way or the other. I think Behe needs to settle for "assumed" or "believed" embedded design and not "provable" design. John ________________________________ From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:02:38 PM Subject: RE: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent “Behe accepts evolution, common descent, etc - he has questions about particular mechanisms, but also is on record as thinking all of life could have unfolded "naturalistically" in a front-loaded way.”   If Behe accepts the possibility of front-loading, then that says he doesn’t have a firm conviction of his “irreducibly complex” theory.  You can’t hold both- they are mutually exclusive.  Correct?   …Bernie   ________________________________ From:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:43 AM To: asa@calvin.edu Subject: Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent   If you ask me "Do they accept evolution", I'd have to ask "Who's they?" and "Which evolution?" Behe accepts evolution, common descent, etc - he has questions about particular mechanisms, but also is on record as thinking all of life could have unfolded "naturalistically" in a front-loaded way. Michael Denton, similar. Mike Gene occupies a unique place in these discussions - not seeing what he suggests and explores as "science", but at the same time investigating the possibilities of FLE - and he's been mentioned positively over at UD more than once. I could even point to William Dembski arguing that even if "Darwininian evolution" were true, that it was/is teleological. The examples could continue. Expelled was a movie that covered a variety of topics - hinting at what the producers perceived to be the social effects of "Darwinism", a supposedly hostile climate for people questioning certain orthodoxies in universities, cultural agendas of "Darwinists", etc. Now, I'm not going to deny for a moment that there are ID proponents who DO deny evolution - that "Big Tent" does have a place for YECs, OECs, and even TEs of a certain mindset. I'm arguing that it's as much a mistake to try and neatly boil down ID to 'deny evolution' or 'Christian apologetics' as it would be to reduce evolutionary to 'deny God' or 'atheist apologetics'. Sadly, the world is rarely as simple as we'd like it to be. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote: “As someone who has followed the ID community for a long time now, the one thing I've been convinced of is that attempts to boil down the ID view into something simple typically don't succeed. It really is not mere Christian apologetics, or evolution denialism, or anything else so stark.”   ID is not about evolution denialism?  Tell that to the expelled producers and host.  I suppose you think they are wrong with their presentation of ID, or do you think they accept evolution?   …Bernie   ________________________________ From:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:47 AM To: asa@calvin.edu Subject: Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent   For whatever faults some in the ID or even RTB community may have, they do happen to promote looking at science in general from a very different perspective than is standard - and still a valid one besides. I reject the RTB creation model, but I absolutely celebrate their powerful and consistent tendency to regard even the more "mechanistic" and known operations of nature as instances of exemplary design. I similarly celebrate similar tendencies in the ID community - nor do I think the ID argument boils down to 'scriptural concordancy'. As someone who has followed the ID community for a long time now, the one thing I've been convinced of is that attempts to boil down the ID view into something simple typically don't succeed. It really is not mere Christian apologetics, or evolution denialism, or anything else so stark. There's a number of viewpoints, maybe even some recurring themes, but there's more going on there than a weapon or a wedge. I won't deny that ID (OEC I'm less familiar with) can serve as a "weapon" in culture wars. But that "weapon" I see amounts to offering a fresh, valid, and powerful perspective/framework within which to view nature and do science. Also promoting something, the value of which I think is understated - a healthy skepticism when it comes to science news and academic views. Keep in mind, I do have criticisms of the ID community. Then again, I have criticisms of everyone. I'm very cranky, I suppose. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote: I agree that fundamentally both ID and OEC are theological weapons designed to fight back against atheism and the perceived atheist hijacking of science in the culture wars. The problem with this blind rage strategy is two fold: one that it assumes that the naturalistic/mechanistic workings of creation are not sufficient enough for God to get any credit for them, and that they had to come about thru fiat creation. This is even selectively employed by some, for instance RTB since they accept cosmic evolution for the origin of the universe but for the origin of humanity they insist that Adam had to be created specially, which is a glaring inconsistency in their position. And two, the ID argument boils down to be effectively the same as YEC which is a theological presupposition of literal scriptural concordancy and an accompanying embedded inoculation against any science that implies anything to the contrary, which is not only arguing from ignorance but
 also easily falsifiable. As George has aptly pointed out, many ideas of ID have merit and have greatly contributed to the understanding of the complexities and design of life, but these ideas should be separate from the baggage of being used a weapon in the culture war, just like we should view Dawkin's Selfish Gene theory separately from his Christian-bashing militant atheism. If the defender's of ID had appreciated this distinction from the start, we could have avoided Dover and the polarization of the culture and Collins' appointment wouldn't be half as newsworthy or controversial.   Although maybe well intended, I liken the attempt to defend God in the culture wars through ID to the soldier in the OT who had the presumption to try to catch the ark when it was falling, much to his literal demise. We have to step back and realize that God is big enough to defend Himself in this war and that He has a way to do it successfully. Collins has figured that out and maybe Cal Thomas is starting to but hopefully the rest of the ID camp will as well soon.   John     ________________________________ From:George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> To: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:10:31 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent   I think it's wise to see the idea of intelligent design as one weapon - an important one to be sure - of a religious-ethical-political movement in the culture wars.  Surely the wedge strategy should have made that clear long ago.  That being said, certainly some of the ID claims - I think especially of Behe - would have been made even had there not been that movement but they would not have received as much attention - & to be fair, would not have roused such animosity in the scientific community - without it.   Shalom George http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm ----- Original Message ----- >From:Schwarzwald >To:asa@calvin.edu >Sent:Friday, July 17, 2009 9:02 AM >Subject:Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent >  >Or it could be that there is an honest interest in the science apart from specific theological concerns, but there are also cultural and theological aspects to the debate. It would be just as easy to argue that many of the people who dedicate quite a lot of time to defending "Darwinism" have only a marginal concern about science and science education, and are actually operating primarily with social, philosophical, and even political goals in mind. > >I don't think it's wise to regard ID in general, or even UD in particular as being concerned "mostly about religious and ethical issues" with science being little more than a rider. >On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:45 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote: >The fact that UD's initial attack on Collins focues on abortion is significant.  Of course "Darwinism" is pulled in but the primary concern has little to do with science.  This makes it clear - if anyone didn't realize it already - that "the Intelligent Design community" which UD says its serving is concerned mostly about religious and ethical issues, & science is of interest only to the extent that it impacts those interests. > >Shalom >George >http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> >To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu> >Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:33 PM >Subject: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent >  >Francis Collins' nomination is being discussed over on UD, and I added my two cents to that conversation this morning. > >http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/genome-mapper-francis-collins-picked-to-head-nih-touted-as-evangelical-is-that-fair-to-either-side > >As Jack Haas recently noted, this might be a good time to say something in his defense. > >Ted > > > >To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with >"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with >"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 17 14:22:42 2009