RE: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent

As someone who still firmly believes in the Truths of the Testable Creation
Model of RTB, I must state that I personally support Collin's nomination.
Whether or not RTB does.that's another story. This is just me speaking.

I hate to say this, but.it's relative. Think about who we could have. Do I
want an OEC at the helm? Of course. Will I support a TE at the helm?
Certainly. It's better than a Marxist, socialist, naturalist, etc.

Heck, I may even write a grant.

Hi, John. Hope all is well.

God bless,

JP

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:58 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 <mailto: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-picke
d-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 22:28:23 2009