Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Ted, I generally find your comments on ID judicious and well-informed. I
think your statements in this post are accurate.

I don't know the early history of the ID movement, so I cannot say what ID
people originally meant by "teach the controversy". For all I know, they
may have originally intended to have ID taught in the schools as a
counter-blast to Darwinism. But since the Dover trial, at least, I've never
heard any prominent ID advocate argue that ID should be made a mandatory
part of biology class. They have said that it wouldn't be unconstitutional
to present ID (not endorse it, but present it) in biology class, but they
have also said that it wouldn't be wise, because there aren't enough
teachers who understand ID yet, and ID hasn't produced a large enough body
of research yet. They would prefer to see Darwinian theory taught more
thoroughly and more critically.

I am not 100% sure that I want to call ID "science", as opposed to "rational
inference based on the discoveries of science". I can certainly imagine a
definition of "science" that would include ID, but as many here would insist
on a narrower meaning for the term, it would merely lead to a quarrel over
words for me to try to introduce such a definition. Further, as both you
and Gregory Arago know, drawing upon your training in the history of science
and the field known as "sociology of knowledge", the definition of "science"
has changed many times over the centuries, and is tied up with all kinds of
cultural, religious, political and other assumptions. So I don't think it's
very productive for either side, the pro-ID or the anti-ID, to use the word
"science" as a magical, incantatory word, as if, by claiming it for their
side, they win the battle. I think it's much more productive to talk about
"nature", and ask: "Which explanation does the most justice to the facts of
nature?" When the question is put that way, I think there is a place for ID
at the table, along with Darwinism. The task is to really explain the
evolution of life, not simply to accept the answer, however improbable,
lacking in details, or otherwise unsatisfying, which has successfully passed
through the narrow reductionist filter which our academic terminology
currently calls "science". In other words, our notion of "biology", which
has long been crippled by Cartesianism, needs to be expanded in order to
deal faithfully with the phenomena it undertakes to explain. Such an
expansion would not be an illegitimate addition to "biology" properly
understood, which, according to its Greek root, means "the rational
accounting (logos) for life (bios)". I'm looking for a rational accounting
for life, and I don't much care whether such an accounting is called
"science" or something else.

Regarding your last comment, I will always strive to make sure that ID
people give you the time of day.

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

>I add my own thanks for Cameron's patience and clarity in explaining his
> views on ID, as someone who is committed to that position.
>
> I agree with Randy's assessment of the conversation, but not without some
> irony on my part. For years, I've made statements such as following (or
> close equivalents):
>
> (1) ID is an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory
> efficacy
> of Darwinian evolution, combined with an appeal for scientists to add
> “design” to the set of explanatory principles they employ in biology
> and other sciences.
>
> I've esp emphasized the first part of that sentence, and I've often been
> rather strongly criticized for it -- I don't understand ID, I'm not being
> fair; who am I (a critic) to define or describe ID in such a manner?
>
> I've also said things like this (2): when ID advocates say, “teach the
> controversy,” they do not mean that ID should be taught as an alternative
> to evolution, in the same sense in which the authors of the Arkansas bill
> wanted creationism taught as another theory of equal merit to evolution.
> Rather, they are referring mainly to the negative critique of evolution as
> it is presented in textbooks; they want students to learn that some
> scientists do not accept important aspects of the standard picture of
> evolution.
>
> The irony is that these statements, which pretty fairly summarize my
> overall understanding of ID, are fully consistent with the picture of ID
> that Cameron has given us -- as far as I can tell. The one potential
> difference is my use of the word "philosophical" instead of "scientific"
> in
> the first statement. That's a bone of contention for many, obviously, but
> surely the rest of these statements are accurate and fair to the way in
> which ID proponents understand what they are doing and thinking? Is this
> so, Cameron?
>
> I just think that sometimes it becomes so important to some people, to
> control every word in the conversation, that they are unwilling to concede
> competence to anyone who doesn't actually share their view of things. In
> fact, I think I've studied ID as both a set of ideas and a cultural
> phenomenon a lot more than many camp followers of ID who would not give me
> the time of day.
>
> 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.
Received on Mon Jul 20 17:36:18 2009