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

Let us not forget that the original statement that some of us signed was the following:

 A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Nucacids [nucacids@wowway.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:14 PM
To: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Hi Randy,

"Though the ID community is very diverse and,
as has often been pointed out here, defies any attempt at simple
generalities, some common themes do emerge. I used to think the key unifying
themes were the design inference, the explanatory filter, the role of DNA
information/intelligent agent information, the wedge strategy, the
metaphysical battle with atheism, etc. Though each of these is important, I
think I had failed to grasp the degree to which there is a pervasive
perspective of "evolution as science is not solid, independent of any
metaphysical implications or any wedge strategy or any theological or
philosophical issues." The various highly nuanced caveats by Dembski and
Behe that if evolution were shown to be true, it would not be a problem for
ID, do not belie the view they continue to hold that, in fact, evolution is
not scientifically sound."

If you are correct, there is an interesting irony. The pervasive
perspective that "evolution is
not scientifically sound" has nothing to do with intelligent design. Thus,
the "ID community" would not be united around "ID"!
So in what sense is it then an "ID community?" Wouldn't it be more accurate
to label it as a community of evolution skeptics?

-Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

> Cameron wrote:
> "...The reason we need to keep dragging the science into these debates is
> that Darwinian theory is weak science. Not just weak metaphysics, but
> weak
> science. There's almost no evidence for it...."
>
> I think this helps very much to understand much of the confusion among us.
> In parallel, I've been having discussions with another ID advocate who had
> similar comments. It finally makes a lot of sense to realize that the big
> tent nature of ID is an attractor for those who feel that the theory of
> evolution is not good science. Though the ID community is very diverse
> and,
> as has often been pointed out here, defies any attempt at simple
> generalities, some common themes do emerge. I used to think the key
> unifying
> themes were the design inference, the explanatory filter, the role of DNA
> information/intelligent agent information, the wedge strategy, the
> metaphysical battle with atheism, etc. Though each of these is important,
> I
> think I had failed to grasp the degree to which there is a pervasive
> perspective of "evolution as science is not solid, independent of any
> metaphysical implications or any wedge strategy or any theological or
> philosophical issues." The various highly nuanced caveats by Dembski and
> Behe that if evolution were shown to be true, it would not be a problem
> for
> ID, do not belie the view they continue to hold that, in fact, evolution
> is
> not scientifically sound. That is, the failure of evolution as a
> scientific
> theory is not seen as a requirement for the design inference but it is
> viewed as failed within its own domain in any case. As a result, the Texas
> school board discussion is viewed solely as a science discussion. No
> ulterior motive of getting the design inference or any of these
> implications
> into the discussion. Just plain and simple, have the teachers acknowledge
> that the science is weak--or at least that many scientists think so.
> Meanwhile, the scientific community can't fathom this and insist there
> must
> be an ulterior motive lurking somewhere.
>
> A few weeks ago, Cameron and I came to this point and we went down the
> rabbit trail to an impasse. To me, his reasons for thinking evolution is
> not
> good science reflect an inadequate view of what science is as well as what
> evolution is. In turn, he thinks I don't understand science or evolution
> and
> so we end in a stalemate. Whereas one would think that a good science
> discussion, leaving out all the complex metaphysical ramifications or
> theological implications, would be one that could be resolved in a
> straightforward logical matter, that doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> It is very important to know more precisely what the issues are. Cameron,
> I
> think you have been most helpful with your patient and articulate notes.
> Thank you! It's a valuable perspective going into the meeting at Baylor.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.20/2250 - Release Date: 07/20/09
06:16:00

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 Tue Jul 21 12:08:39 2009