Re: ID/TE conversations

From: <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 10:22:18 EDT

I heartily second Ted's comments. I'd like to commend the participants in
this round for avoiding ridicule and personal jabs. A fundamental
characteristic of the ASA is to build on our foundational statement of faith
and encourage discussion of differences of opinion in the context of respect
for each other and without fear of ridicule. We don't always do that very
well in the heat of debate. Our online statement of faith begins with "As
an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest
disagreement between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing
an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust
condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have
studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the
Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth."

We've lost a number of participants as a result of our tendency to ridicule,
but perhaps we can rebuild the diversity of our group. I've tried to join
at least one ID discussion list but I was required to affirm agreement of
the ID position as a criterion to join. I wasn't clear enough about just
what version of ID was required so I declined. I definitely believe in an
Intelligent Designer and am awed by his intelligent design but unfortunately
they meant something more specific than that. David Snoke's discussion
group is by invitation only but doesn't require agreement with a particular
ideology so I was able to join that. I'd like to keep our discussion list
open, active, diverse, and at a high level of quality where people are treated with
respect and thoughtful analysis rather than ridicule and knee-jerk kicks.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: ID/TE conversations

>I appreciate the exchanges involving George (Cornelius) Hunter, Terry Gray,
> David Campbell and some others, concerning the explanatory efficacy of
> neo-Darwinism. It takes time and energy to compose these posts, and as
> far
> as I can tell it has been a vigorous exchange of ideas and arguments and
> not
> a display of ad hominems.
>
> IMO there is not enough of this type of healthy exchange on our list or
> elsewhere. I hope this type of conversation will take place more
> frequently. There are multiple points of disagreement between many IDs
> and
> many non--ID TEs (there are some people like Mike Behe and Robin Collins
> who
> fit both categories, IMO), and of course among IDs and among TEs (both are
> actually very large tents). I lack the competence to sort out the
> biological arguments, but the philosophical differences about what
> constitutes a good explanation are very interesting to see. I esp
> appreciate it when scientists state clearly their philosophical premises,
> as
> has been happening in this case.
>
> It might be an even more interesting exchange if George had a few others
> on
> his side of the fence, but IDs have not typically found this list
> hospitable
> and few in recent years have come on to engage their opponents. Let us
> give
> George a round of applause, and encourage him to bring some friends along
> with him to expand the boundaries of the conversation. Let's extend the
> type of thing that happened at the ASA meeting this summer.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 22 10:25:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 10:25:17 EDT