Re: On Gray, "Darwinism," and "design"

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Thu Feb 16 2006 - 19:18:49 EST

"If we merely respond to their frame we remain trapped in it." - Robert Schneider
   
  I share Robert's and Keith's concerns about this. It seems, however, that no one on the list has a suggestion about how to match the DI or to set a process in motion to counter-act the 'propaganda organs' of the IDM. Or the mobilization topic is just secondary to the RTB issue. Of course, there are IDists in ASA and no one would want to insult them or openly oppose their approach, which ultimately is built on a Christian foundation.
   
  For some reason I have the feeling, even though he is buried in Westminster Abby, that scientists at ASA would choose not to side with Darwin against a theory (not-ID) that improved upon his 19th century idea of evolution and natural selection, whatever merits his concepts/ideas/metaphors still may have in certain disciplines. An improved/alternative scientific generalization doesn't even have to come in biology or botany or try to prove anything about 'origins of life' (or whether Adam had a belly button).
   
  Does anyone know if Asa Gray concentrated on OoL, Genesis 1&2 or the ideology of evolution, rather than just 'doing science'?
  
Gregory

   
  Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
          Those of us who think the ID advocates are not accurately presenting the facts about evolution need to deconstruct their frame, show it to be inadequate for meeting needs and answering fears, and provide an alternative that both presents evolution in a positive light and brings creation and evolution together. A frame that assures people that God creates and evolution is good science. Mostly, we have to educate people about what science really is and what scientists really do, since public ignorance among Americans about these things is rampant. If we merely respond to their frame we remain trapped in it.
   
  We also need to find a way to match their organization (Discovery Institute and other propaganda organs) with one of our own.
   
  Anyone have any suggestions?
   
  Bob Schneider
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Ted Davis ; asa@calvin.edu ; kbmill@ksu.edu
  Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:19 PM
  Subject: Re: On Gray, "Darwinism," and "design"
   
  "It is the ID proponents who insist on labelling evolutionary theory as 'Darwinism' and on defining it as implying a purposeless and meaningless process that denies God." - Keith Miller
   
  Yes, and if so then why can this not be revealed to the American public? Is there no public relations vehicle capable of countering the IDM's rhetoric/propaganda? I ask this not to be pretentious, but to seek real possibilities and answers. Is it because the IDM promises sensationalist consequences in science (e.g. Dembski's 'revolution' chants) that ID dominates the news columns? Or perhaps a process has yet to be put in motion that would satisfactorily curtail such false labelling of evolution by God seekers who are concerned that evolution obscures their search?
   
  Darwin doesn't seem to be the one ready to stop anybody from putting a process in motion.
   
   
  G. Arago
   
   
  p.s. just now thought of a perhaps-useful modifier f or critics of ID who speak about the negative argument and gaps topic - why not call it the 'Don't Deny Design Movement' instead of the ID movement? This connects to Ted's contention: "[F]or Hodge *as also for Gray*, the denial of design is atheism."

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Thu Feb 16 19:19:27 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 16 2006 - 19:19:28 EST