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

Cameron,

I share Randy's appreciation for your contributions to this list. A significant number of our members are sympathetic to aspects of ID (I am myself in that group), even though one might not conclude that from following the exchanges here. Please consider joining the ASA (or the CSCA, since you are a Canadian), if you are able to affirm our simple faith statement. Membership would not only involve you more fully in the life of our organization; it would also help us grow and become more effective at helping Christians advance the kingdom of God through careers related to science.

***

Completely separately, I will now comment briefly on the general attitude toward science, esp toward aspects of evolution, that is conveyed by your recent posts on the incompleteness of Darwinian theory and the lower status you seem to accord to the historical sciences. I have addressed this at other times, sometimes responding to your points and sometimes in other contexts, and I won't repeat it all. I'll cut to the chase.

It seems to me, Cameron, that your approach stresses what the current paradigm in natural history (whether or not it is correct to call all of it "Darwinism") is unable to do, so far: to provide detailed mechanisms and pathways for the development of all of the major types of plants and animals (we don't talk much about plants, but I don't want them to feel slighted). This is similar IMO to the deep scepticism about (for example) theories of the formation of the solar system and its parts that Cornelius (George) Hunter has displayed, and similar to the profound scepticism -- the outright denial -- of the general validity of the big bang on the part of YECs, who love to make hay about particular details that don't yet have adequate explanations within standard cosmology. On the other hand, you've indicated full acceptance (in principle) with embryological theory, even though it too has many areas where the details of development are unknown. The difference I am finding cou!
 ld be put this way, I think (if I am misreading you please correct me): it is entirely reasonable for us to accept the validity of theories about the development of individual living things, here and now, even though we do not know many things about how it happens; it is not reasonable for us to accept the validity of theories about the development of living things in general, and it might also be unreasonable for us to accept theories about the development of the universe and the solar system (depending on how sympathetic you are to Hunter's doubts), b/c we do not know many things about how it happens -- and, b/c we cannot try to discover them and we cannot directly test them by controlled experiments.

Is this a fair way to state things?

If not, it might be helpful for you to revise the language above to convey more accurately how you see this -- if possible in roughly the same number of words, though if that isn't possible then it isn't possible.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 23 10:15:08 2009