Re: [asa] STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Wed May 30 2007 - 10:34:41 EDT

By way of counter-example here's another anti-ID statement that doesn't have
the problematic re-definition of methodological naturalism:

The RASC Ottawa Centre supports high standards of scientific integrity,
> academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also respects the
> scientific method and recognizes that the validity of any scientific model
> comes only as a result of rational hypotheses, sound experimentation, and
> findings that can be replicated by others.
>
> The RASC Ottawa Centre, then, is unequivocal in its support of
> contemporary evolutionary theory that has its roots in the seminal work of
> Charles Darwin and has been refined by findings accumulated over 140 years.
>
> Some dissenters from this position are proponents of non-scientific
> explanations of the nature of the universe. These may include "creation
> science", "creationism", "intelligent design" or other non-scientific
> "alternatives to evolution". While we respect the dissenters' right to
> express their views, these views are theirs alone and are in no way endorsed
> by the RASC Ottawa Centre. It is our collective position that these
> explanations do not meet the characteristics and rigour of scientific
> empiricism.
>
> Therefore the science agenda of the RASC Ottawa Centre and its
> publications will not promote any non-scientific explanations of the nature
> of the universe.
>

On 5/27/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> 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 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 Wed May 30 10:35:24 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 30 2007 - 10:35:24 EDT