From: Dave Wallace <>
Date: Sun May 27 2007 - 08:09:45 EDT

David Opderbeck wrote:
> I would not sign it, even aside from these objections, because of the
> context in which it was brought. No document should be interpreted
> apart from its context. The context of this document was a sustained
> attack on a Christian by an atheist, not merely a neutral, scholarly
> statement about ID. The document must be read in the context of that
> attack.

This seems to me to be a major reason not to sign the petition. Since I
do not think that ID is as yet science and I have doubts it will be able
to become science I can well see the faculty wanting to distance
themselves from ID especially as popularized on UcD. The other major
reason is Ted's point that similar objections to Dawkins religious
writings are not being made.

I somehow doubt that the authors of the petition much care about the
distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism as we on
this list do and were simply sloppy in drafting the petition. This is
the kind of area that ASA needs to help people understand.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 27 08:11:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 27 2007 - 08:11:02 EDT