From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Fri May 18 2007 - 08:36:48 EDT

On May 18, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Bill Hamilton wrote:

> While I agree with the statement, as far as it goes, I don't think
> I'd sign it if I were a member of the ISU faculty, for the
> following reasons
> 1) It's part of the political vendetta against Gonzalez. After
> things cool down, I might sign it, provided my second objection is
> remediated:
> 2) As it stands the petition could be seen as advocating that all
> discussion of intelligent design should be verboten. As Ted has
> pointed out, id has a legitimate place in philosophy of science.

Even as someone who holds to methodological naturalism and
demarcation I wouldn't either for the same reasons. Randy, in our
discussions with the AAAS DoSER they need to understand how truly
damaging such in-your-face statements like this are. As I said
previously there is a very real possibility that this might seriously
damage the tenure system itself. Yesterday, Ward Churchill's lawyer
threatened a civil rights lawsuit if things don't go his way. Avalos
and Patterson in their zeal for atheism in the name of science are
blindly leading my alma mater into a conflagration that might very
well consume it. As the pro-ID and pro-science forces lock horns in
their respective warfare models they are trashing the neighborhood
with both faith and science losing. I resent this being made into a
litmus test. I can support good science like the proper use of
methodological naturalism and I can support scientists of faith like
Dr. Gonzalez, but I cannot support either this or analogous litmus
tests presented by the ID camp. In my humble opinion neither should
the ASA because that path is marked by destruction.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 18 08:37:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 18 2007 - 08:37:06 EDT