Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Instead of criticizing what Randy offered, I think I'll try giving a stab at
my own commentary, and questions I'd pose.

1) I don't regularly read World, so I can't tell how sincere the part about
the magazine trying to be non-partisan in its approach to politics, but the
gesture seems positive nonetheless.

2) Also nice that Collins receives such outright praise from World. I've
noticed Meyer praised (and even supported the nomination of) Collins, which
if nothing else strikes me as a positive step and proof that ID proponents
and TEs do - gasp! - have common ground and cordiality.

3) Confusion over what "Darwinism" means seems rampant. It happens in every
forum I've followed on these subjects, it happened with West v Barr, and
it's happening here. The Catholic in me is practically wishing there would
be a council where all sides would show up and these terms could be defined
once and for all, to avoid confusion.

4) Olasky seems to be asking an honest question here - just what are
Collins' views? And he also seems to be making a fair observation, namely
that if Collins really believes evolution is "guided", then he believes in a
form of ID. Dembski has talked about this with Collins, West talked about
this with Barr, and of course there's also the history with Denton, Mike
Gene, and others.

5) Collins doesn't "have" to debate or discuss things with Meyer, but Olasky
seems to desire it purely to see what kind of progress could be made, and
what kind of differences really stand out between both parties. It seems
less like a demand to Collins than a hopeful idea.

6) Olasky makes a comment about not having a "high view of scripture", and
I'd also disagree with that. On the other hand, he also doesn't seem too
focused or concerned with that - he acknowledges Collins has his own
interpretation, and it doesn't seem so out of line that Olasky suggests it
cannot be reconciled with the faith.

The questions I'd shoot Olasky's way.

1) If Collins' views really are a "version of ID", then why does the DI seem
to give out mixed signals on this topic at times? Is it that the DI has one
particular (or even several specific) "preferred" forms of ID, while
acknowledging that other versions are valid?

2) If Collins' views are a version of ID - and if Dembski was accurate when
he meant that even Ken Miller's views are a version of ID - then is there
really a "TE v ID" conflict going on at all? Isn't it all a fight that's
technically under the "big tent" of ID?

3) More than that, if evolution is entirely compatible with ID - and I not
only personally believe it is, but as much seems to have been affirmed
multiple times by everyone from John West to William Dembski to otherwise -
then shouldn't this be made more clear? As it stands, far too many people I
casually encounter, pro-ID and anti-, connect ID with being against
evolution. How much of this is confusion by critics, and how much of this is
poor coordination by ID prominent proponents?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>wrote:

> I'm not sure either direction is right. Olasky states his views of what
> ID is and he's rather far off the mark. Why wouldn't there be a problem if
> he simply thinks Collins is inconsistent by opposing a view which is the
> same as his own? I think I spelled out the kind of ID coverage that Collins
> would support. Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and
> opposing ID. That seems contradictory to him. That's why he would like some
> clarification.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:01 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
> Instead of getting hung up on trying to define ID for the purposes of a
> response here, why not respond by asking Olasky to explain what he views ID
> as comprising and why? If he wants to argue that what Collins believes about
> evolution actually qualifies as ID, I fail to see the problem. Wouldn't that
> be a step in the right direction? Or is the idea that Collins should be
> viewed as utterly distinct from ID, no matter what ID actually covers?
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > 3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
>> > No, not the ID that is so prominently discussed in the media. Yes, as
>> > Christians we all believe that our Creator is an intelligent designer
>> and we
>> > all believe that the awesome world around us simply shouts out the
>> existence
>> > of this intelligent designer. But that's not what ID is. ID is the
>> belief
>> > that a) evolution is not an adequate explanation of the origin of
>> species,
>> > and b) that there is a specific logical argument
>> > based on the information-like, specified complexity-type character of
>> DNA
>> > for which the best
>> > explanation is an indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the
>> argument
>> > with which Collins disagrees.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly what ID is is rather problematic. Regrettably, the given
>> definitions seem to have more to do with the perceived audience appeal
>> than to consistent delineation. As the Dover trial pointed out, the
>> phrase is used as a substitute for creation science. It includes a
>> wide range of levels of acceptance of evolution, from total denial to
>> fairly full acceptance.
>>
>> What its claimed theological/philosophical base would be is also
>> problematic. In particular, it is marketed as both a Christian
>> apologetic and as a religiously neutral scientific endeavor.
>>
>> The strength of claims made also varies. Does ID assert that evidence
>> of "design" is a well-supported scientific theory, or does it just
>> have some curious observations in search of a theory, or is it merely
>> a possibility that's worth investigating (or at least ought not be
>> dismissed out of hand)?
>>
>> I am inclined to define ID as the search for evidence about
>> supernatural agency in the physical world. As such, the definition
>> covers Dawkins as well as Johnson-both are trying to support their
>> theology by invoking science.
>>
>> --
>> Dr. David Campbell
>> 425 Scientific Collections
>> University of Alabama
>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>>
>>
>> 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 Wed Jul 29 00:28:43 2009