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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Wed May 30 2007 - 10:57:31 EDT

I do not believe that any question regarding "the nature of the universe" is a scientific question. In fact, the question is metaphysical and as such cannot be answer by any theory, say, evolutionary theory, that purports to be scientific. If evolutionary theory can deal with such a question, then we have here more than a scientific theory and, therefore, all attempts that claim to deal with this question must be treated on equal footing.

 

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Rich Blinne
Sent: Wed 5/30/2007 10:34 AM
To: Dave Wallace
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY

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 10:57:54 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 30 2007 - 10:57:54 EDT