John,
I agree that it would be good not to fight about this. At the same time, Ayala has been a key voice opposing ID, in ways that IMO are not always the best: he offers alternatives that aren't very thoughtful and seems to me overly dismissive of aspects of ID that I am not convinced he has investigate himself all that carefully. I have the impression from what's been said here that Craig did a much better job of understanding Ayala's TE position than vice versa. That seems to happen fairly often: the ID advocates tend to do their homework. (They don't tend to read the theologically serious TE material, however, and that does cause problems for their blanket statements about TE, as I have often said and will continue to say. But Ayala is not in this category, IMO. He doesn't bend over backwards to provide evidence of his seminary training.)
On the other hand, I think Ayala's overall approach to reductionism and scientism is admirable and correct -- better than the ID approach, IMO. This is where he "gets it." He realizes that NS does not account for the by-products of our intelligence, and he realizes that this is a very strong argument, one of the best ones there is for defending a theistic view of the world. He needs to get credit for this in ID circles, IMO.
Ted
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 10:18:56 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 10:18:56 EST