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

" 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." -CW

I think TE's would agree with you in "looking for a rational accounting for life" however what it is called makes a crucial difference and that is where we diverge. If it is truly emperical science then the ID arguments are vindicated and TE is remiss in not joining the battle with you in the culture wars. However I contend most TE's would differ with you here and not regard ID as science, and therefore don't cross the line between internally looking, individual faith and externally looking science that would have conclusive power in the culture.

If ID is not properly science then it becomes mostly faith, which I agree is the appropriate classification. That is not a bad thing or it doesn't take away anything from Behe's arguments for design let's say, but it stops short of proving it in an objective way. It remains subjective and therefore requires interpretation which can yield differing results.

For instance, when Jesus performed His miracles, to most of the people it was a "rational accounting" to ascribe them to Jesus being the Son of God. However, the disciples were powerless to prove this in any way to those that refused to believe. And the Pharisees had their own alternate accouting that was rational to them. This is the way God chose to work then and I contend it is still the same today.

I see the contributions of ID and the revelation of the amazing complexities of life and the near inifinite improbabilities of life originating without divine intervention as being the equivalent of a modern day miracle that God is using and it has the same effect on people today as then. To those inclined to believe it is perfectly logical and even obvious. However, to those who are not inclined to believe there is enough wiggle room to let them off the hook so they don't have to, just as it was back then. 
But then there was no formula or magic bullet or "science" to prove God, there was only faith. And that is still the same today.

Thanks

John

----- Original Message ----
From: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
To: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:35:01 PM
Subject: 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.

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 22:29:24 2009