Re: [asa] Denyse's advice

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu May 03 2007 - 22:57:03 EDT

*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?*

This particular criticism of Behe is unfair. I read the transcripts of that
testimony carefully when the brouhaha over it first arose shortly after the
trial. The context of the testimony was that science is a progressive
endeavor; theories such as astrology, spontaneous generation,
alchemy, luminiferous aether, etc. eventually are replaced when they are
falsified or when stronger, more coherent and descriptive theories come
along. Behe did NOT testify that astrology constitutes a valid scientific
theory today. Moreover, Behe's testimony did NOT relate to the pop
astrology found in newspaper horoscopes.

Rather, the testimony was that long ago people who studied nature believed
the movements and positions of the stars exercised some causative effect on
human affairs. In the sense that this theory provided explanations about
causation in nature, his testimony was that he would call that a
"scientific" theory. However, he was quite clear that this theory was
falsified long ago, along with things like alchemy and spontaneous
generation.

In addition, the transcript does not read as though the lawyer
cross-examining Behe wrangled some sort of admission that ID essentially
equals astrology in terms of scientific merit, which is how popular reports
seem to play it (like a sort of "*You want the truth? You can't handle the
truth!"* moment). It was part of a more mundane sequence of questions about
the progressive nature of scientific theories. (If Ted was present during
this testimony, I'd be curious to hear how it came across in the
courtroom).

On 5/3/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
> Dave
>
> On Thu, 3 May 2007 16:22:08 -0400 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> writes:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Wallace" <wdwllace@sympatico.ca>
> > To: <esmartin@uoguelph.ca>
> > Cc: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Denyse's advice
> > ..........................
> > My thought would be to have an ASA ID list, an ASA YEC list and an
> > ASA
> > TE list but with stronger moderation rules re lack of respect and
> > politeness. Furthermore I would only allow posting by members of
> > ASA
> > and related national groups like CIS or CSCA.
> > ...........................
> >
> > An ASA YEC list would give the appearance of some official sanction
> > of YEC
> > by ASA. We should not do that. In fact, I think the organization
> > can
> > barely tolerate YEC views if it is going to maintain its integrity.
> > & if
> > anyone thinks that's disrespectful, condescending, or any of those
> > other
> > words that have been tossed around here, too bad. It's time to stop
> >
> > pussyfooting.
> >
> > The fact that I don't say something similar about ID should not be
> > taken to
> > mean that I have a favorable view of that movement.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

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 22:57:35 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 03 2007 - 22:57:35 EDT