Re: [asa] Denyse's advice

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Thu May 03 2007 - 20:12:34 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Mahaffy" <Mahaffy@dordt.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Denyse's advice

> Com on George. See below.
> --
>
> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> 498 4th Ave NE
> Biology Department FAX : 712
> 722-1198
> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>
>>>> On 5/3/2007 at 4:24 PM, in message
> <20070503212554.90F60712402@gray.dordt.edu>,
> "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>> To: <gmurphy@raex.com>
>> Cc: <wdwllace@sympatico.ca>; <esmartin@uoguelph.ca>;
> <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Denyse's advice
>>
>>
>>> George,
>>> I don't understand why you don't approve of ID. Behe, in sworn
> testimony
>>> at Dover, said that the definition of science which will include ID
> also
>>> includes astrology. Do you have a problem with this?
>>
>> I think Behe pretty much discredited himself at Dover, & not just by
> the
>> astrology statement. & as I noted earlier, Dembski's performance
> tends in
>> the same direction. (I think, BTW, that we can now see that his
>> conciliatory remarks about ID at the 2005 ASA meeting were probably
>> hypocritical.)
>
> George unless you really have some basis for that cut out that type of
> remark. I have no reason to doubt the communication that Bill or Mike
> were making.

a) I said nothing about Behe's statement.

b) The way in which Dembski has not only allowed but defended O'Leary's
equation of TE with "Darwinism" (in the pejorative sense) gives plenty of
reason to doubt his sincerity.

> The ID movement is rapidly losing any claim in ever had to
>> be a group pursuing a scientific research project & is now just a
> social
>> movement. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that it may not grow in
> influence
>>
>> on the ignorant - cf. what happened when L. Ron Hubbard turned the
>> pseudoscience of Dianetics into the religion of Scientology.

> This is simply ID bashing. For pity's sake why compare him to ron
> Hubbard. that is hardly fair.
> I could go on but I will leave it at that. Lets rise above the bashing
> and deal with the issues we like or don't like.

If you will take the trouble to read with any care (which you failed to do
above & failed to do here), you will see that I did not make a personal
comparison of Dembski with Hubbard. I suggested a parallel between what
happened in the change of Hubbard's invention from a supposed science to a
religion with what I suggested would happen with the ID movement.

If you're worried about "bashing," why have you said nothing about the
unbridled rhetoric of O'Leary's that Dembski promotes on his blog?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 3 20:13:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 03 2007 - 20:13:32 EDT