Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

I'll register my opinion on the Collins affair.

1. I think Collins is fully qualified for the position. (From a scientific point of view, anyway. I have no knowledge of his abilities as an administrator.)

2. I think it is despicable to suggest that Collins should not be given the position because of his Christian beliefs.

3. The ID people that I know of, whatever disagreements they may have with Collins, agree with point 2 above.

4. Re Olasky: Whatever objections people here may have to his characterization of Darwinism, TE, ID, etc., Olasky's remarks make the point I have been trying to make, i.e., that TE has a lot more work to do in getting its message out to the public. Olasky's comments show that the categories and definitions currently operative in the public mind are not the categories and definitions TE writers would like to see at the front and center of the debate. Again, most people's idea of "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" comes not from TE writings but from the views expressed by Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Gould, Dawkins, etc., and from notions of evolution presented in science fiction, etc. That is just a fact of the American cultural landscape, whether TEs like it or not. They are going to have to deal with that if they hope to make any headway into altering public opinion.

5. Regarding a "high view of Scripture", I agree with George Murphy. A "high view of Scripture" is for me a high view of the *value* of Scripture; this does not entail the belief that all narratives in the Bible must be understood literally. (At the same time, however, one doesn't have to believe that Genesis 1 is a literal description of what happened in order to believe that God did something in creation other than supervise the unfolding of natural laws.)

Cameron.

 
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Schwarzwald
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:28 AM
  Subject: 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
      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 16:38:38 2009