Re: [asa] gonzalez' citation record

From: Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
Date: Fri May 25 2007 - 19:49:52 EDT

> Louise, what are the substantive differences between what Gonzalez said
> in
> his book about the cosmological design argument and what Collins said
> about
> the same argument in his? As far as I can tell, they're essentially
> the
> same argument. I think you're tarring Gonzelez just because he's
> associated
> with the DI, rather than because of anything he said in his book.

As I stated before, I have not read Gonzalez's book and have only just begun Collins' so I can't
answer that. I was not atempting to tar Gonzalez with anything, only to distinguish between
theists who consider themselves "ID advocates" and those that do not. I know Collins thinks
"biological" ID is a bad idea; what his view on cosmological fine-tuning is I couldn't say.

Nor do I know how Gonzalez feels about biological versus cosmological ID, or if that would
make any difference to his critics.

And, like it or not, the DI has built itself a reputation of being an enemy of science education,
especially in the public schools. If someone accepts funding for them, I don't think they can be
surprised if they are painted with that brush, fair or not. If the work of, for example, Robin
Collins was promoted as much as that of Jonathon Wells, the situation might be different.

> If the blogger you quoted is a theist, I'd respectfully submit that he
> has
> to do alot more work on the interface between science and faith,
> because he
> clearly buys into the "warfare" hypothesis.

I don't pretend to be an expert the guy.... I just thought it was interesting to get the
prespective of an astronomer who is also in trnur trouble for lack of grant funding. He talks
some about his personal faith in this post, if you want to judge for yourself.

http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/05/intelligent_design_a_trap_for.php#more

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 25 19:50:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 25 2007 - 19:50:33 EDT