Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent

This is a reply to John Walley's post - originaly was offlist due to a
mistake, but here it is below with one small addition towards the end.

First, I have no objection with TE - I *am* a TE, in essence. I'm very at
> home with evolution (always have been - Catholic schooling probably had a
> hand in that), and have never been a YEC. In fact, I'll flatly say that I
> used to be very hostile to YECs once upon a time, and treated them with
> scorn. So I come to this with my own history, though from an opposite
> direction.
>
> Why do we need a different way to look at science? That's easy to answer:
> Because it's possible and valid to do so, which is all the reason in the
> world. Regarding the world and nature as exhibiting real and actual design,
> not merely apparent - or worse (yet more commonly) - illusory design. Now,
> this could comport nicely with a TE view - you seem to agree with that much.
> The only problem is that the TEs aren't stepping up to the plate and making
> these observations. ID proponents are. Even the RTB people are. The one time
> in recent memory where "TEs" did this (in Fitness of the Cosmos for Life)
> Ben Wiker - who probably exemplifies the "Expelled" attitude to a T -
> praised the book. Dembski has argued that Ken Miller, if he's serious about
> his speculations of guidance at the quantum level or through convergence,
> would fit in the ID camp.
>
> Yet most TEs don't want to walk down that road, and it so often seems to be
> because even modest, qualified speculations about design in nature raises
> the ire of colleagues - and the approval of colleagues is of paramount
> importance. As I said, Fitness of the Cosmos for Life was a step in the
> right direction - but until more steps like that are taken, I'm going to
> find myself sympathizing far more with ID proponents and even the RTB
> people, with all their flaws. I don't believe design can be scientifically
> proven - but neither can it be disproven. Yet the latter claim has been
> implied, strongly implied, by academic culture for quite a long time now. ID
> proponents are engaging in no novel abuse of science.
>
> I already gave my reply to Bernie about Expelled, which I think applies
> here too. But I'll add: Your comments imply that, if only it weren't for
> those unruly ID people, we'd all be better off. Francis Collins wouldn't be
> under attack by atheists/anti-theists, Christianity wouldn't be caricatured
> ridiculously in the media, and everything would be hunky-dory. Frankly, that
> strikes me as tremendously naive. I have grave disagreements with YECs, but
> I also disagree with what seems to be this common TE delusion that, if only
> the YECs and the like were gone, the people who denounce, malign, and
> misrepresent Christianity would go away. It won't happen, because the bone
> of contention with Christianity has never had much to do with scientific
> validity. The New Atheists have made it abundantly clear that their problem
> with Christianity in particular amounts to political differences - yelling
> about "science" just happens to be a handy weapon.
>
> Finally, regarding scriptural concordism: Have you looked at the people ID
> associates with? Was Michael Denton (before he left the DI) a scriptural
> concordist? How about Michael Behe, Catholic that he is? Richard Sternberg,
> another Catholic with heavy platonist leanings? What about Rob Sheldon, now
> and then referred to on UD, whose ID thoughts focus on quasi-panspermia and
> horizontal gene transfer? I'm not denying that there are concordists in the
> ID movement. I am not denying that there are large 'cultures' under that big
> tent, some of which deny evolution, some of which pursue a kind of
> concordism, etc. I'm saying there's more going on there, and frankly, I'm
> encouraged by it. You wonder if Collins would be taking the heat he is now
> if ID wasn't around. In turn, I have to wonder if there would be anyone
> loudly defending the presence of guidance, design, and intelligence in
> nature (be they IDs proponents, OECs, or some TEs) were it not for ID - or
> if the status quo would be either cognitive dissonance or crypto-deism.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Schwarzwald,
>>
>> I used to be a very strong ID and OEC proponent for all the reasons I have
>> enumerated below. I feel I am qualified to paint ID/OEC with that brush as
>> that is the common bond I shared with everyone else that I knew in the
>> movement. And that bond is very powerful. So take my comments below in that
>> light as one who is an empathetic but reformed ID'er.
>>
>> As Bernie mentioned, Expelled is the logical extension of where ID leads.
>> I do not see this embodying any of things below that you say redeem ID and
>> contributes to science. WHy do we need a different way to look as science?
>> And how exactly does ID provide this? What is wrong with good old fashioned
>> methodological naturalism? I have come to appreciate this after my
>> conversion from ID.
>>
>> If we agree that mechanistic processes can exemplify design, then what
>> objection do you have with TE? If ID could bring themselves to agree with
>> your statement we wouldn't have any issues. There is obviously more to ID
>> than one simplistic formula or another, but the common theme you refer to is
>> the theological presupposition I mentioned and the motive to defend
>> traditional evangelical theology in the culture war (which is derived from
>> scriptural concordism I contend).
>>
>> Also I don't see how ID adds " a fresh, valid, and powerful
>> perspective/framework within which to view nature and do science". In fact I
>> now feel it is the opposite, that is serves only to be disruptive and
>> defensive and needlessly challenges and demonizes the status quo with
>> implied dishonesty on the part of mostly honest practitioners. This is not
>> any different than a spolied child throwing a tantrum when they don't get
>> what they want or when they can't get someone to agree with them. What we
>> are reaping from this is not any new way to do science but justification for
>> the opponents of the Christian faith to be in arms when one of ours is
>> selected for some high profile scientific appointment.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2009 11:47:09 AM
>> *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 <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>> *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<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- 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 Sat Jul 18 05:58:33 2009