Re: [asa] RE: Public questions for Denyse O'Leary

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Fri Dec 22 2006 - 17:27:18 EST

The commentary is certainly flying many ways! Denyse O’Leary is surely at least supportive of the Christian basis of ASA, even though she seems to prefer engagement in a politikally-motivated (e.g. journalistic) type of Christianity to a scientifically-motivated type. Her recent conversion from one Christian church to another seems to represent this quest to redefine herself in God’s Kingdom appropriately to her character.
  Two statements have been missed in the responses that if possible I would like to see addressed:
  Ted wrote:
  “You [Denyse] are also apparently unable to acknowledge that any type of TE position has any intellectual merits.”
  Is it really true that Denyse finds absolutely NO intellectual merits in ‘any type of TE position’? It would be a sign of honesty to admit something if she does indeed find merits, in the sense that making concessions would help to soften her jagged image.
  Denyse wrote:
  “ASA stays out of the fray because it would get smacked down SO hard if it dared be relevant - and you are not used to that, are you?”
  Aside from the crude, unscholarly wrestling language of ‘smack down,’ there is perhaps a legitimate charge about ‘being relevant.’ It seems obvious that what would count as ‘relevant’ differs in Denyse’s mind/heart from what it does to most at ASA. It also seems that what counts as ‘fray’ is defined differently on both sides of the conversation. From my pov, the ASA is certainly involved ‘in the fray,’ but in a qualitatively and quantitatively different way than Denyse O’Leary and the IDM.
  Denyse seems to be quite concerned with ‘volume,’ writing about it and taunting the ASA to become ‘louder’ than W. Dembski in challenging ‘scientific materialism.’ Though I don’t think the ASA should strive simply for ‘volume’ (which could just take the form of a village jack-ass hee-hawing to everyone that she’s found the truth that they’re all missing – ‘loud and proud’ does not guarantee ‘truth’), it would seem quite important to distance scientifically-minded Christianity from scientific materialism in a more consistent, perhaps clearly formulated way.
  Many people at ASA lean heavily on the MN/PN distinction. This has been written about by many scholars, especially those who have studied philosophy of science or HPS. Yet perhaps a contribution could be made that offers a criticism of how ‘scientific materialism’ has been represented/promoted in the evolutionary paradigm. Let it be added that this would require the contribution of anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, human geographers, culturologists and others outside of the natural sciences who can more clearly than natural scientists ‘report on’ the overt materialism sometimes shown/assumed to be evolutionarily logical.
  I’m still wondering why Denyse and her buddies stick with ‘Darwinism’ instead of attacking ‘evolutionism.’ Books like ‘evolution after Darwin’ reveal that attacking Darwin’s views exclusively is a rather feeble attempt at addressing the field. Evolutionary theory survives just fine without Dawkins and Dennett, and the youtube atheists! It is just another funny thing that Denyse O’Leary, the self-called copycat ‘post-Darwinian,’ is actually at the same time (just like Michael Behe and Dembski) an evolutionist too!

Michael Roberts <> wrote:
  A Christmas message I wrote for our local newspaper - limit of 300 words or so. Have I taken on Dawkins then?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 22 17:27:36 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 22 2006 - 17:27:36 EST