Re: [asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE

Ted wrote: "Yes, I do think that the "big tent" should shrink, and I realize that if ID expressly endorsed an ancient earth & universe and common descent that it would shrink to perhaps 10% of its present size (perhaps even less)." O.k. Ted, since Rich is not answering me because doing so would be putting the lie to his assertation about ID and YEC being so closely connected, the same can be asked of you: make a Top Ten List of ID theorists, your List, Ted Davis' List, and count for me how many of those individual persons don't accept 'ancient earth' or 'common descent.' Doing so will settle this ambiguity and stop annoying me because almost everyone on this list is speaking nonsense right now about things they cannot possibly know - sheer speculation! Otherwise, I'll just continue to think you're badly mistaken as I've met probaby just as many of the 'ID leaders' as you have Ted, and they don't present themselves as 'young earthers'! You and Rich make them sound like 'flat earthers' with your broad brush strokes, while they are educated at some of the finest universities in America! Otherwise one might be led to conclude that there are serious things wrong with American education and I don't think that has to be the conclusion. Now, I realise, Ted, that you address a different issue than Rich, who just suggested that ID 'leans toward' YEC. You're speaking about the so-called 'Big Tent' of ID, which is indeed a topic that is best addressed by sociology of science than by *any* other academic discipline (or maybe anthropology of science too!). I am well qualified to discuss this, as you know my focus has been on sociology of science. So, if 90% of people who 'accept ID' as it comes from the say 7% or so (following Lakatos) "ID leaders" who are determining the 'research program' and 'theory of ID' (because you have to get your ideas from somewhere, from someone!); so, if those 90% actually were actually *against* an 'ancient earth' and *against* 'common descent,' then "if ID (leaders) endorsed an ancient earth and common descent" the tent would shrink to 10%. This is the argument, right: 90% of the people who 'accept ID' are young earthers who don't think that human beings 'evolved' from a common ancestor with (other) animals? Again, I think there's a serious problem with your position, Ted. Have you ever been to an IDEA meeting? Have you noticed that the younger generation of ID advocates are interested in 'information theory' and 'pattern recognition,' and that their studies in these areas might actually produce scientific insights? Young people are actually inspired to go into scientific careers because of the IDM and the controversy it is creating about the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution and possibility that 'life is designed.' It gives the 'purpose'! The younger generation was not raised on the 'evolution vs. creation' controversy of the first half of the 20th century. They are dealing with new issues; the discovery of so-called 'molecular machines' being one of them and we all know that the machines that humans make, they are all 'designed.' John Lennox says that 'information implies mind.' Young people are faced with 'information overload.' But some backward-looking (philosophically) TE people want to say that such a view about 'information' does not address their outdated concerns, and then they expect 20 year-olds who are interested in 'information patterns' to start thinking about such topic using terms that are not 'information friendly'. No wonder TE is less appealing to many young Americans than is ID, even without addressing the topic of 'age of earth.' Let's not forget, a person can accept certain aspects of evolutionary theory, for example, the biological aspects, without taking the label of 'theistic evolutionist.' Ted also wrote: "Nevertheless, Schwarzwald, I contend that any viewpoint on science lacks credibility if it does not grant the general legitimacy of those scientific conclusions.  If you can't say those things, from what we know about geology, cosmology, physics, and genetics, then what can we say?  It's one thing to have big reservations about the efficacy of unguided NS to do everything it is claimed to do; it's another thing entirely to imply that those other things might not be well established, legitimate conclusions of science." This is kind of a reductionistic argument, made in a integralist-seeking era, don't you think? O.k. so a nuclear physicist *must* grant an 'ancient earth' and 'common descent,' in order to make a credible contribution to the field? A neuro-scientist *must* grant an 'ancient earth' and 'common descent,' in order to make a legitimate contribution to the field? For that matter, an electrical engineer *must* grant an 'ancient earth' and 'common descent,' in order to make a legitimate contribution to the field. Sorry Ted, I just don't agree with this on holistic grounds. Chances are that most scientists do *trust* the consensus in an *outside* scientific field. Most people do accept 'ancient earth' and 'common descent,' at least 90% of the IDists I've met accept both of these things. Maybe in America there is a greater problem than anywhere else in the world because of its blanket literalism (more by Protestants than by Catholics) and heaviest trust in the written word. But there is no compulsion to accept one particular scientific theory from an *outside* field simply to justify the contribution that a person can make in another field. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it! By saying such things, Ted, as I see it, you and several others here are still in the 20th century conversation about 'creation and evolution' and about the question of 'warfare' between 'science and religion,' while the IDists, armed with their fairly contemporary 'philosophy of science' are already well ahead of you. Even Rich Blinne said he uses the term 'TE' "just to have a label!" (Btw, that's a pretty 'Big Tent' strategy if I've ever heard one!) But as you know Ted, I'm not an ID advocate, so I am not defending ID from the inside. Rather, I think you should give more credit where it is due. And you can correct the record immediately by making your Top Ten List and 'proving' (if you can) that ID leaders are 'young earth' and 'anti-common descent' (and the latter will be a much easier case to make, e.g. with a blog called 'uncommon descent,' than the former). Cheers, Gregory  ________________________________ From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 5:35:21 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE Ted, I understand that you think the "big tent" should shrink. But I stand by my reply, which demands the shrinking of another "big tent": A statement from the NCSE and other "pro-science" groups that it is entirely possible that evolution is guided, purposeful, and that the natural world is rife with teleology - but that science, properly defined, cannot prove or disprove these things. This would go a long way towards demonstrating that evolutionary theory really is compatible with Christianity (certainly this is a principle concern?), and that the groups which commit so much effort to getting people to "believe in evolution" are not doing so with the goal of harming their religious beliefs. So, Ted, I'd love to know: Do you think the NCSE should make the statement I've suggested? Should other groups dedicated to "defending science"? If not, why not? As for eugenics, my only point was that an unqualified trust in "scientists" is questionable, and that scientists are entirely capable of abusing their position (and science) for social and political purposes. Yes, in retrospect - and in a modern environment which now frowns upon what was done in the name of "eugenics" - the idea is easy to reject. But at the time, this "social and political program" was sold in large part based on the authority of scientists. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote: Schwarzwald, > >I have little to add to this thread, and even less time to say it.  I'm fine with leaving our differences out there, except to reply to these 2 points of yours: > > ><As for your third point, I have two problems. First, this demand that ID >proponents shrink their big tent: Take a definite stance on the age of the >earth (Despite, in my memory, never seeing a post at UD (everyone's favorite >ID example) arguing for an old earth. Maybe there's been one, but if so it's >been swamped out by other posts) and endorse common descent. Merely making a >place for people who believe in an old earth, or evolution, or common >descent is insufficient: A statement must be made. Do this, and Christian >scientists will be vastly less critical of the ID movement.> > >Yes, I do think that the "big tent" should shrink, and I realize that if ID expressly endorsed an ancient earth & universe and common descent that it would shrink to perhaps 10% of its present size (perhaps even less).  Nevertheless, Schwarzwald, I contend that any viewpoint on science lacks credibility if it does not grant the general legitimacy of those scientific conclusions.  If you can't say those things, from what we know about geology, cosmology, physics, and genetics, then what can we say?  It's one thing to have big reservations about the efficacy of unguided NS to do everything it is claimed to do; it's another thing entirely to imply that those other things might not be well established, legitimate conclusions of science. > > ><Second, you take issue with ID supposedly "creating doubt about the >confidence that ordinary people ought to place in the conclusions of >scientists, including the conclusions that scientists have drawn on matters >such as these." Well, Ted, I think this question is one hell of a hornet's >nest. I won't say much on it here, since far too much would need to be said. >But I have to say: I think you clearly believe there is a certain scope to a >scientist's conclusions, and scientists have gone beyond this scope and >abused their scientific authority. It's the typical example, one of many, >but I'll reach for it now: Eugenics.> > >Not a good comparison, IMO, Schwarzwald.  This is related to what I said above: if you don't know what good science looks like, then what's the basis for questioning "Darwinism"?  Eugenics was from the get-go a social and political program in applied science, and one with profound moral implications.  I fail to see any parallel here to saying that the universe is 13.7 BY old, or that our knowledge of the human genome is highly consistent with common descent.  Those seem to have the status of "facts."  They are either true or not, based on empirical findings.  Eugenics was another ball of wax.  A lot of scientists liked it, and it used some scientific facts as springboards, but it wasn't about those facts in the first place. > >Ted > __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 17 12:56:44 2009